Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

The footers were at the PGF film site last month doing some “re-enactment” filming using a K-100 camera and Kodachrome film. Not at all sure what they hope to accomplish. As far as I know, the film cannot be developed properly anymore. There is some garage type operation but I think the best you can get for Kodachrome movie film is a sort of black and white result.
Many stumps and background trees are still there and some clearing of brush etc has made it easier to locate them.
 
DennyT said:
The footers were at the PGF film site last month...

Many stumps and background trees are still there and some clearing of brush etc has made it easier to locate them.
Click to expand...
I might have some confusion. Two years ago you were here arguing against Streufert saying he had not found the site. He showed pictures and you said no.

Did he actually find and photograph the site back then or am I remembering wrong or what? He came here with diagrams and photos and you were slamming him. I thought he found the site but I remember you being contrary.

Help me remember because I sure could be wrong about that.
 
No controversy concerning the existence of the site. Only controversy on whether any particular party has actually found it.

We already know that people have said "this is it" but it wasn't.
 
William Parcher said:
I might have some confusion. Two years ago you were here arguing against Streufert saying he had not found the site. He showed pictures and you said no.

Did he actually find and photograph the site back then or am I remembering wrong or what? He came here with diagrams and photos and you were slamming him. I thought he found the site but I remember you being contrary.

Help me remember because I sure could be wrong about that.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you misremember; I never disputed the “re-discovery” of the site in 2011 by SS, Robert Leiterman et al. Bill Munns visited the site in 2012 and confirmed the findings. Later that year it became apparent that some of the important landmarks at the site were inaccurately plotted, in part due to the difficulty in negotiating the new growth of vegetation. Between that time and now little has been done other than some clearing of limbs and pilgimages by believers.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
To give credit where credit is due, I thought Green and Dahinden did check out the site pretty good.

The failure to follow up on the ' for real ' Bigfoot that was filmed there, was the real problem.
Click to expand...

My take is that Dahindens efforts at the site were long delayed and imho are largely useless, especially since they have been twisted by others notably in the books by Murphy. He visited the site many times but only a couple of his measurements and one photo are all that are useful (the photo taken from the hillside overlooking the site). Like Green and most believers he had no appreciation of optics, science or investigation. Greens effort in 1968 was very productive but neither he nor anyone else used the information until Munns came along. Jim McClarin deserves a lot of credit as does Richard Henry (and Daniel Perez for interviewing Henry).

The site was of course never really lost, but it did become much harder to get to. ... a fair number of people knew where it was. But no one cared until 2003. And at that time Daniel Perez told the assembled “experts” that it had been washed away. Gimlin was there at the time and whispered to someone where it was, but no one really listened. So from 2003 until 2011 there were about 4 candidate sites identified by Streufert as being espoused by various “experts”.

Some have said “so what”...the site can’t prove anything at this late date. I would reply ”not so fast...”
 
Last edited:
I think we have touched on this recently.
Once the site is identified, the existing stumps and trees can be used to create an accurate site map and to settle those “non-suit” * issues that have been argued ad infinitum by various members of several “boards” starting with Ole Bill’s first appearance on MonsterQuest some 9 years ago. Those of you who have been around that long may recall the debates, the individuals and the issues. The site has now been located and subject to study (almost exclusively by the bleevers) for 7 years.

Think about it.


*suit issues (assuming the suit is missing) are a standoff: the believer position rests on the fact that an unknown animal can look like anything including a man in a suit. The skeptics position is that neither Ole Bill nor anyone else can prove that a suit like what can be seen couldn’t have been man-made.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
I just don't see the point in establishing the filming site.

It proves nothing about the veracity of the film.
Click to expand...
You didn't like my comma joke huh?! :o

Kidding aside, I'm with you. Though, I think this Bluff Creek thing is more of a 'make work' exercise. Popular Bigfooting seems pretty dead at the present and they're looking for some action (so-to-speak). Anything that comes up out of such shenanigans that's even the slightest bit 'controversial' would probably do wonders to reinvigorate/redeploy the BLAARGing masses.

Moneymaker can't sell any more Bigfoot shows precisely because everyone got so bored to death of NEVER A RESOLUTION watching his other stupid show(s). As with Meldrum and NAWAC and fifty other outlets, they NEVER offer up anything that would be considered "truly satisfying". They all talk the talk like the world's their puny fool, yet they never ever deliver it. Not even once. :eye-poppi
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I just don't see the point in establishing the filming site.

It proves nothing about the veracity of the film.
Click to expand...

Had the site and other info, such as the lens and filming speed, distances to camp and vehicles, method of shipping film, etc., been properly documented at the time, the site would still be useful for testing ideas / theories.

But we would also likely know it was a scam if that documentation had occurred.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Had the site and other info, such as the lens and filming speed, distances to camp and vehicles, method of shipping film, etc., been properly documented at the time, the site would still be useful for testing ideas / theories.

But we would also likely know it was a scam if that documentation had occurred.
Click to expand...

I thought we know it was a scam...because Bigfoot.
 
What I always wish we had but don't are early photographs taken in the area of the logjam. Dahinden climbed the hill to photograph the big open space but it doesn't include the logjam which is the area where the story and Patty begin. It seems that he only had to pan the camera slightly to his left and then the logjam area would then be in the frame. Really he should have taken several photos from his hillside vista to create a sort of panorama. Maybe he did and we don't see those.

P&G told a story about the initial encounter with Patty. That story needs to match the landscape (including the logging road that they were riding on) around that logjam. They said that they suddenly saw Patty because prior to that she was concealed behind the logjam. I want to know if that claim actually does coincide with the landscape. But without any old photos of that area we can't analyze it.

A spectacular lie about the logjam layout wouldn't surprise me because of all the other obvious lies that were told. The 3-mile Patty tracking lie is both obvious and bold.
 
William Parcher said:
What I always wish we had but don't are early photographs taken in the area of the logjam. Dahinden climbed the hill to photograph the big open space but it doesn't include the logjam which is the area where the story and Patty begin. It seems that he only had to pan the camera slightly to his left and then the logjam area would then be in the frame. Really he should have taken several photos from his hillside vista to create a sort of panorama. Maybe he did and we don't see those.

P&G told a story about the initial encounter with Patty. That story needs to match the landscape (including the logging road that they were riding on) around that logjam. They said that they suddenly saw Patty because prior to that she was concealed behind the logjam. I want to know if that claim actually does coincide with the landscape. But without any old photos of that area we can't analyze it.

A spectacular lie about the logjam layout wouldn't surprise me because of all the other obvious lies that were told. The 3-mile Patty tracking lie is both obvious and bold.
Click to expand...

This issue troubles the more thoughtful believers as well. There seem to have been two woody entities and one imaginary one. What we see in the first frame of the Patty footage (“the “logjam”) seems to be small, without logs or a sizable rootball, though we can’t see more than the upstream edge. NB: No one who later visited the site ever remarked on it. Richard Henry did not put it in his sketch. Nor did Titmus. Nor did Green. Or Dahinden. No one ever photographed it, though many went there with cameras: McClarin, Green, Dahinden, Haas...or even Patterson himself.
Downstream about 75-100 yards is a truly memorable monstrous rootball, some 8 feet high, which fits the “room-size” description, on the same side (Northwest)as the filmsite. This is the single most impressive feature in that stretch of creek bed. It is memorable. A Sasquatch could easily hide behind it. However, its location is not compatible with Patty crouching behind/next to it. It is way too far from the terrain seen on the film.
Krantz, who never visited the site seems to have added to the confusion by drawing a fallen tree spanning the creek on his diagram, in the position seen on the film, with the roots on the opposite side (southeast). This is largely imaginary as far as anyone knows.
The giant rootball of the story is (like the bent stirrup) an authentic-sounding detail/explanation for how they got so close: one cannot credibly see (and be seen by) a Sasquatch 75-100 yards away and reasonably ride up to within a few dozen feet of it. It works as a story. Until someone locates the actual filmsite and you go there. It is in the the wrong place.
 
Last edited:
Titmus drew a simplified map based on his visit. He has shown a single large fallen tree which he calls "Tree Root System". It coincides with what I call the "Logjam" which can be seen in the first few shaky frames of the film.

Attached is the Titmus map and a still from the beginning of the film. We see a mass of jumbled wood. It probably contains tree(s), logs and branches... all of various sizes. That pile does contain at least one large fallen tree and I think that Titmus simplified his depiction of the jumbled wood pile so that he only drew the one big fallen tree because it was the most prominent single feature of the jumble pile.

I call the jumble pile the "logjam". Titmus simplifies and calls it "Tree Root System". But he and I are talking about the same thing and we can all see this "thing" in the first few frames.
 

Attachments

  • Titmus map cropped 2.jpg
    Titmus map cropped 2.jpg
    82 KB · Views: 7
  • WP1.jpg
    WP1.jpg
    131.6 KB · Views: 5
This frame from the film beginning allows us to see that the jumble pile contains at least one (large) fallen tree. You can see the stubs on the trunk where the branches have broken off. I believe that this is the fallen tree (within the pile) that Titmus drew. But there might be another fallen tree within that pile that attracted his attention for his simplified drawing.
 

Attachments

  • WP3.jpg
    WP3.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 6
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom