zig, that is a great site.
50 miles south west of bluff creek, they received almost a 1/2 inch of rain.
Weather data for Eureka,CA Oct 21,1967
Weather predictions on the Pacific Coast are generally quite accurate (and quite important) as far as incoming storms are concerned. I mention this because if Patterson and Gimlin had been out and about for several hours, driving back and forth to Eureka and/or some airport, it would seem likely that they would have heard on the radio, weather reports (rural stations don't have a lot else to talk about) and in particular, any reports of a large storm (ie "bad weather") coming in. Coastal towns like Eureka make a big deal of significant storms because people get killed if they go out in the ocean unprepared. but it seems there wasn't any big storm. The precipitation reported on Sunday, Oct. 22, the next day, was a dew-like 0.06 inches. So there wasn't any rain on the 20th at Bluff Creek, there was .5 inch at Eureka on the 21st, and 0.06 inch on the 22nd. This would have next to no effect on river flows, or on people who were equipped for a week or more of camping, people who weren't hiking around, and who had a real, moneymaking, important, business reason for being out there. Patterson and Gimlin weren't there to commune with nature.
So I would submit that Patterson likely had neither the prediction of "bad weather," nor had was he actually experiencing anything other than a mild rain, that was in no way extraordinary for that season/area.
But yet when giving a reason for his departure, over the phone to Dahinden on the morning of Oct. 21, it seems that Patterson blamed the weather. Not Gimlin's job (he really didn't have a steady one, aside from boarding/training horses, as far as I have been able to learn.); rather, Patterson blamed the "bad" weather. What was so "bad" about the weather, that it made him abandon a significant plan, a plan that would contribute significantly to the success of the project he had been obsessing over and working on and writing about for literally years?? ... and, instead, change to a plan that had a sigificant "crack" in it, a flaw that he never adequately was able to answer, that constitutes one of the principal pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film?
Edited by parnassus, 29 January 2012 - 01:57 PM.