Jump to content

Patty's Entrance And Exit


Recommended Posts

BobZenor

You can tell from Google Maps that the logging went about a half mile down the creek from 12N42. It makes sense that they would make some temporary roads at least that far down from there. Apparently they did add to the trail in the creek bed near the site. They may have done some selected logging in the creek bed. After reading some of Bigfootbookman's research, it sounds like a few people did force their way up the creek from the bridge in Jeeps. Daniel Perez, McClarin, and Burns apparently went that way. The only way we seem to disagree, and it isn't relevant, is that I seriously doubt that even a cat trail ever extended all the way to to bridge. He seems to think it was completely washed out before Patterson arrived.

If Burns had followed the tire tracks of a temporary jeep trail that opened from the few jeeps going up that way, it would explain why he screwed up the map so badly. He has a 1500 foot hill in his creek bed. He apparently switched the ridge route including 12N42 with the route he took.

This is close to the view that Patty would have had from ridge where she rested according to Bigfootbookman's probably much more accurate estimation of her path. Gimlin described her as climbing up cliffs. It would obviously be quite a feat for someone in a suit and a very difficult climb even without.

post-77-077721000 1302659504_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
Daniel Perez

What you see in the illustration is a modified map, a compilation of Dr. Grover Krantz and Bob Titmus, as it appeared in Bigfoot At Bluff Creek. Bob sent down his original map around 1991 or thereabouts and it is the blueprint for what you see. The original  is watered down. This map has more detail. I also did an audio tape interview with Bob about his recollections of seeing the film site in late October 1967, and if I knew how to take it from a cassette tape to youtube, I probably would. The long and short of what Bob told me: "that is a genuine film."

 

Regards,

 

Daniel Perez

Bigfoot Times, 1998 to present

Bigfoot At Bluff Creek, 1994 and revised 2003

Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

As a note, the reference to Burns...his name is Peter Cyril BYRNE. There is no evidence the subject approached the film site from the south side of Bluff Creek. As Bob Gimlin told me, we only saw the tracks at the edge of the creek, on the side where the subject was filmed. He told me he did NOT KNOW how the subject go there. A logical ASSUMPTION is the subject was in the creek heading south, or as the water flows, and that Bob and Roger were headed up stream and both subject and Bob and Roger were on a collision course.

 

To further the assumption or speculation, the subject may have been walking in the creek, deliberately,  to avoid leaving any trackway. Why I don't think the subject approached from the south, or going upstream? Because that is the path that Bob and Roger were already on and the subject may have sensed them had that happened. That is why I favor the subject's approach as arriving at the film site heading downstream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

 

Seems reasonable.  I see 2 issues though.  The first favors Bob and Roger. That is, The noise of the creek help cover any noise of Bob and Roger's approach.  That makes sense why the stumbled on Patty.  The same issue is the second point. That is, why would a creature who is good at being hard to find put herself near the creek where it put her at a disadvantage to hear oncoming threats?

 

I could see this though is Patty is looking for food in or near the creek.  Also Patty might be smart enough to know how to cover her tracks in more open areas.   

 

Finally, I see in these Cool Hand Luke movies the prisoner seems to use the creek flow to help take the track dogs off the scent.  Don't know if that even applies in this case. Still if Patty approached this way then I am reaching for reasons why she may have.

 

In one way the creek approach supports the PGF. In another way it does make us ask why Patty would go to the noisiest way.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Scent around water is actually increased due to the many particles available.  Walking in water increases scent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I recall an episode of Man Tracker where he said walkin' in water doesn't help, they showed in the episode the foot prints under the water.  

 

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

As far as scent goes, the scent particles will attach to the water particles..it will carry were ever the breeze or wind takes it. 

Tracks on the other hand.. if its rock then basically you have not much of a trace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

What about the noise issue?   What advantage is there to Patty to walk in or near or in the water due to the noise.  Wouldn't the noise make it harder for Patty to hear oncoming danger if she regularly employed this practice?

 

Patty, for reasons of her own, probably did walk on or near the water. But, my guess it had less to do with any special method Patty would employ.  I am just guessing it had more to do with some food source that attracted her to the water or it's edge this particular day.   

 

It seems very reasonable Patty walked on or in the creek bed.  Whatever the reason, was this just one time thing or her usual way of traveling when out in the open?  Who really knows?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

As a note, the reference to Burns...his name is Peter Cyril BYRNE. There is no evidence the subject approached the film site from the south side of Bluff Creek. As Bob Gimlin told me, we only saw the tracks at the edge of the creek, on the side where the subject was filmed. He told me he did NOT KNOW how the subject go there. A logical ASSUMPTION is the subject was in the creek heading south, or as the water flows, and that Bob and Roger were headed up stream and both subject and Bob and Roger were on a collision course.

 

 

That sounds like a plausible scenario to me, Daniel. :)

 

 

 

 

To further the assumption or speculation, the subject may have been walking in the creek, deliberately,  to avoid leaving any trackway. Why I don't think the subject approached from the south, or going upstream? Because that is the path that Bob and Roger were already on and the subject may have sensed them had that happened. That is why I favor the subject's approach as arriving at the film site heading downstream.

 

 

I've also considered that scenario, Daniel....because of a couple of unusual things about the trackway at the scene. 

 

One unusual thing about it is it's length. As far as I know, Bigfoot footprints aren't commonly found as lengthy trackways. To check on that, I just did a Google search....and found this statement in an article about the London, Ontario trackway...

 

 

 

 

Okay, Bigfoot field folks are all excited by the recent find of 122 tracks that might be of a Sasquatch in London, Oregon. Rightfully so, as long trackways are rare.

 

 

http://www.cryptozoonews.com/or-122/

 

 

In addition to an unusually long trackway....one other odd detail is the lack of a trackway leading up to the point where the tracks began.

 

Given those two oddites....I think it suggests that, if Roger and Bob hadn't stumbled across Patty....she probably wouldn't have walked that route, across the open sandbar.

Instead, she probably would have continued down, or up-stream, and walked onto dry ground at a point closer to the woods....(and left behind fewer tracks.)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The theory Patty arrived via the creek seems to be the only reasonable one based on the evidence. If it is generally agreed there were no other footprints coming out of the woods or whatever then that leaves the creek or some part of a harder surface that does not leave tracks.  Maybe an old hard packed road?

 

Patty probably did not swing from the trees and land in the spot where Roger first saw her.  Thus, that leaves a hard packed area or the creek.  Unless I am missing something I have not thought of. 

 

The creek seams reasonable to me.  

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

The creek should be a good foraging source.  Fish, frogs, shell fish.. i'm not sure what is in that particular stream as well as what ever edible plants are found.  Using the water way is idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Timus had this to say...

 

 "I also spent a little time I trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar."  - Bob Titmus

 

Pat...

 

ps Wheellug,

 

Regardin' tracks in creeks, if there is algae or silt on the rocks, that can be rubbed of when stepped on.

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If we knew what Bigfoot would eat it might determine a lot of things. 

 

Many shows on the subject talk about great apes being plant eaters. Are we to assume this about Patty?  Doesn't seem like enough food out there if she does not eat meat.

 

I would assume Patty would have to be a meat eater as well only due to the calorie demands. If a 150 lb man needs 2000 Cal to stay alive without exercise and other higher energy output I should think A Bigfoot would need to able to eat everything and anything in the woods.  As one expert put it, "this (the woods) is a wasteland" regarding available food.  I don't know about a wasteland but Patty's calorie needs would be sky high.

 

I just don't think we will know which direction Patty came from. We do know where she went. It is my understanding she was tracked for several hundred yards or that was the claim.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...