Guest tracker

Bluff & Blue Creek Northern Ca 1958-1969

56 posts in this topic

I suppose the best way to get a good answer would be to ask your questions of those who failed to investigate back then. I imagine many are still alive. It would be very important to frame the question properly, so that they give the answer they would have given if asked back then, rather than an answer colored by the passage of time & the evolution of the Bigfoot phenomena in popular culture.

I would guess it would be as simple an answer as this: Those that had jobs preferred not to spend time & money on an ape-hunt when so many other things in their lives took priority. Those that had plenty of time, probably didn't have jobs and therefore no money to spend on an ape-hunt. The idle rich are, well, idle.

It is important to not let your own biases impinge when trying to determine the motivations of others, especially when the actions (or lack thereof) took place decades ago.

Even in today's economic malaise, we enjoy far more free time & disposable income (or access to easy credit) than was the case in the 50's & 60's. So it is easy to say, "If it'd been me, I'd have done X", making the improbable assumption you'd hold the same priorities then as you do now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Chris Murphy's book The Bigfoot Film Journal it states on page 52 that Roger himself went back to Bluff Creek with his brother, Les, and 10 head of horses. John Green thought the mystery would be solved within months. Roger thought scientists would swoop down on the area. They had another think coming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the best way to get a good answer would be to ask your questions of those who failed to investigate back then.....

.......I would guess it would be as simple an answer as this: Those that had jobs preferred not to spend time & money on an ape-hunt when so many other things in their lives took priority.....

That is certainly my answer. I've got my own life to live and have plenty of other priorities.

However, I fail to see why that answer works for the official wildlife management agencies. For example, with a decade of so many reports, and culminating in the PG film, one would think that the California Dept. of Fish and Game would be interested enough to send a delegate to interview Patterson/Gimlin, or even to review the film after D.W. Grieve, Dmitri Donskoy, or Ken Peterson analyzed it, or talk to them about their reviews.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Chris Murphy's book The Bigfoot Film Journal it states on page 52 that Roger himself went back to Bluff Creek with his brother, Les, and 10 head of horses. John Green thought the mystery would be solved within months. Roger thought scientists would swoop down on the area. They had another think coming.

"Roger showed his film at the Smithsonian Institute. And he came back from the Smithsonian with a clean bill of health. He got nine or ten honorary degress in anthropology after he produce this letter of credibility from the Smithsonian Institute. When he left there the Smithsonian gave him a big, ol' plaque."

Les Patterson to Greg Long, 1999 - MoB, p. 78

Lester Patterson told Chris Murphy that he went with Roger to the film site with ten of his own horses on a trip sponsored by Ford and J.B. Hunt. He claimed that while no Bigfoots were filmed, they did find tracks. I am not 100% convinced about all the things Lester Patterson claimed regarding Roger, just as some are not convinced regarding the claims of Bob Heironimus' brother Howard, but I can imagine a scenario where Roger and his brother did go. It is certainly in line with the types of things Roger did and in no way affects a hoax scenario.

I would have liked to interview Lester Patterson for Walking With Bigfoot. Sadly, Lester passed away July 13, 2009 following a car accident.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As it turns out, some of the Yakima residents who were quoted by Greg Long in his book now say their stories and comments about Roger were distorted in his book. They say Long seemed to be on a mission to make Roger Patterson out to be a petty criminal."

http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp

It is certainly in line with the types of things Roger did and in no way affects a scenario of him wanting to try for another shot after scientists didn't come swooping down on Bluff Creek.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider this especially so with regard to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. In all the references to Patty, the PG film, Patterson, Jerry Crew, et al, there is no mention whatsoever of a visit, interview, phone call, happenstance meeting with a biologist in the area, nothing. They are more elusive than the sasquatches themselves.

You simply haven't done your homework. Don Abbott contacted several zoologists from Humboldt State University in Arcata to examine prints claimed to from Bigfoot at the end of August 1967 which they did and concluded were fake. Even going back to 1958 tracks were investigated by the local sherriff's office which fingered Ray Wallace as the perpetrator. He denied it at the time, of course, decades before the stompers were shown by remaining family members after he died.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As it turns out, some of the Yakima residents who were quoted by Greg Long in his book now say their stories and comments about Roger were distorted in his book. They say Long seemed to be on a mission to make Roger Patterson out to be a petty criminal."

http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp

It is certainly in line with the types of things Roger did and in no way affects a scenario of him wanting to try for another shot after scientists didn't come swooping down on Bluff Creek.

Excellent - you're using BFRO as a source that should have some reliability...

Bigmoney.jpg

I'll use the same Bigfoot enthusiast source you did...

Horse Sense

I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony "Peanuts." Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of "Chico" from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use.

That Patterson and Gimlin had borrowed a horse from a man with whom they were friends, and which would later (1999) claim to have been the "creature" in the film seems odd on the surface. However, Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition, so Patterson arranged to borrow Chico as stated. It is all that simple. The three men were friends and neighbours and borrowed horses from each other. Although Gimlin can't specifically recall, it is likely he had a borrowed horse for the previous Mt. St. Helens expedition.

Chris Murphy - Bigfoot Film Journal, p.38

So who dropped that chalupa, Murphy or Gimlin? Either way, one of those two can't get their stories straight.

If Roger went on a merry sponsored trek with his brother down to Bluff Creek on Ford and JB Hunt's dime sometime after the PGF was filmed, so what? This was exactly what Roger wanted to do - make his living chasing Bigfoot. If he is asked to go back, or he suggestes it, it is all for the better for supporting his claim. Think like a hoaxer. What does he have to lose?

If he was really serious about a real Bigfoot there, instead of ripping off to Hollywood to make Bigfoot Enterprises and cash in, he could have used the support he had from Al DeAtley to track the creature down immediately when it left huge tracks, moved decidely unhurriedly, and was said to stink horribly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply haven't done your homework. Don Abbott contacted several zoologists from Humboldt State University in Arcata to examine prints claimed to from Bigfoot at the end of August 1967 which they did and concluded were fake. Even going back to 1958 tracks were investigated by the local sherriff's office which fingered Ray Wallace as the perpetrator. He denied it at the time, of course, decades before the stompers were shown by remaining family members after he died.

Source what the zoologists actually said, please. Most of the prints were obliterated by the road building crew before the zoologists got there. We've been over this before.

Ray might have denied it in 1958 because he didn't do it. He was out of the area at the time according to Al Hodgson.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green stated that the zoologists did not have enough to go on to make an opinion. I would rather not rely on Green's word about their opinions. What is clear from Green's book is that after examining the tracks, including what Don Abbott preserved, those zoologists argued to Abbott, a cultural anthropologist, that they were not real. Bigfoot chasers said yes, zoologists said no. It matters little to me because I have seen plentiful photographic documentation and it all looks comicly fake, like some form of American folk art.

I'm not going to circumvent the closing of the BCM hoax thread by dragging it out here. The point is that when Huntster said there was no mention whatsoever of any meetings with or examinations by local biologists, it was simply not true.

Edited by kitakaze
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster, on 10 May 2011 - 05:32 AM, said:

I consider this especially so with regard to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. In all the references to Patty, the PG film, Patterson, Jerry Crew, et al, there is no mention whatsoever of a visit, interview, phone call, happenstance meeting with a biologist in the area, nothing. They are more elusive than the sasquatches themselves.

You simply haven't done your homework. Don Abbott contacted several zoologists from Humboldt State University in Arcata to examine prints claimed to from Bigfoot at the end of August 1967 which they did and concluded were fake.

You either aren't wearing your reading glasses, or you're well beyond "homework".

Zoologists from Humboldt State University are not California Dept. of Fish and Game biologists, nor are they official wildlife managers in any capacity.

Even going back to 1958 tracks were investigated by the local sherriff's office which fingered Ray Wallace as the perpetrator.

The local sheriff's office is not the California Dept. of Fish and Game, nor are they official wildlife managers in any capacity.

He denied it at the time, of course.....

And hired hunters (as in "paid money") to hunt the creature down, too, because he claimed that he was losing money on his contract. They even claimed to have seen it.

....decades before the stompers were shown by remaining family members after he died.

Yup. As in "decades later, his family suddenly produces stompers".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You either aren't wearing your reading glasses, or you're well beyond "homework".

Zoologists from Humboldt State University are not California Dept. of Fish and Game biologists, nor are they official wildlife managers in any capacity.

You were quite clear in going beyond CA Fish and Game biologists only...

I consider this especially so with regard to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. In all the references to Patty, the PG film, Patterson, Jerry Crew, et al, there is no mention whatsoever of a visit, interview, phone call, happenstance meeting with a biologist in the area, nothing.[/b] They are more elusive than the sasquatches themselves.

There most certainly was investigation by biologists from the area, the ones Abbott called. They concluded it was a fake. It was not a non-occurence as you said. If you want to quibble about Fish and Game biologists only and not state university biologists, quibble away. Maybe they picked up a paper and saw the folk art impressions and had themselves a hearty, hearty laugh.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster, on 10 May 2011 - 08:13 PM, said:

You either aren't wearing your reading glasses, or you're well beyond "homework".

Zoologists from Humboldt State University are not California Dept. of Fish and Game biologists, nor are they official wildlife managers in any capacity.

You were quite clear in going beyond CA Fish and Game biologists only...

Huntster, on 10 May 2011 - 05:32 AM, said:

I consider this especially so with regard to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. In all the references to Patty, the PG film, Patterson, Jerry Crew, et al, there is no mention whatsoever of a visit, interview, phone call, happenstance meeting with a biologist in the area, nothing.[/b] They are more elusive than the sasquatches themselves.

You were quite clear in going beyond CA Fish and Game biologists only...

There most certainly was investigation by biologists from the area, the ones Abbott called.

1) Yet again, I will be "quite clear": "the ones Abbott called" weren't official wildlife managers from the California Dept. of Fish and Game

2) We are not simply discussing the Patterson film. This thread specifically discusses more than a decade and dozens of reports from the well publicized Jerry Crew event until after the monumentally well published Patterson film.

3) "Official wildlife managers" need no "invitation" from Abbott (or anybody else) to investigate a wildlife issue

4) Several scientists from around the world as well as at least one movie studio analyzed the Patterson film within 4 years of it's filming and wrote reviews. Yet again, there was not a single reference by anybody involved regarding any interest whatsoever by the state department of fish and game.

If you want to quibble about Fish and Game biologists only and not state university biologists, quibble away.

I will not quibble. I will sing it in soprano at every opportunity, and the more you dislike it, the more I love it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never any need for anyone from wildlife management to get involved. Local law enforcement had they right people pegged from the beginning...

Bigwallace34.gif

Get a logging truck with a Bigfoot in the grill and they'd have some wildlife to manage. Folk art like this and spooky tales are not a priority...

020.jpg

Sing it soprano all you like, it will always be to the choir.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Chris Murphy's book The Bigfoot Film Journal it states on page 52 that Roger himself went back to Bluff Creek with his brother, Les, and 10 head of horses. John Green thought the mystery would be solved within months. Roger thought scientists would swoop down on the area. They had another think coming.

Yea i know Roger went back and camped out, thanks. Roger's POV was bias now so i am looking for official investigations. And i am sure a few weekend warriors rushed over seeking fame and fortune to. You would think with all those reports someone with a science background would of shown up? Jees even a zoology student from the closest university? intent on protecting them from any hunters. Those were the days of peace & love and hippies right?

Any evidence of professional hunters, trackers or PhD's at BC or just a few out of work cowboy's and the media? Considering the importance of the discovery, missing link, unknown NA ape. Not much happened, and where were the gov agencies? Jane Goodall or somebody from a zoo with credentials? sign of the times i guess. :blink:

Anyways thats an interesting angle with the Fish and Game Dept guys. I don't know much about that or else i would comment more.

It still seems to me a great opportunity was lost. We don't even have 60 reports in all of Ontario and look at it's size.

JMO tracker, dry.gif

Edited by tracker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider this especially so with regard to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. In all the references to Patty, the PG film, Patterson, Jerry Crew, et al, there is no mention whatsoever of a visit, interview, phone call, happenstance meeting with a biologist in the area, nothing. They are more elusive than the sasquatches themselves.

With regard to the Dept. of Fish and Game (California, or any other state, for that matter), there still isn't enough interest for them to even issue a policy statement. They are as absent today as they were in 1958-1967.

Huntster, do you know if they were ever officially notified at the time? Or are you assuming they would have read the newspaper reports and acted proactively?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites