Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel Perez

P-G Film Notes

Recommended Posts

Daniel Perez

It would appear that JAY ROWLAND, Willow Creek, California, knew LYLE LAVERTY and they worked together. No one knew of the connection before 2015. Jay on building roads and keeping roads open and Lyle in assessing what trees would be surveyed for cutting. Both were there all summer long in 1967 and also in the fall (the time in question) and never saw ROGER PATTERSON or BOB GIMLIN, which might suggest that the pair were in the area for less time than previously claimed or suspected. Jay Rowland is incorrectly spelled "Roland" in my booklet, "Bigfoot At Bluff Creek," currently unavailable for purchase.

 

I was told by a Willow Creek resident that he could have drove right onto the P-G film site if he had four wheel drive and that was in November of 1967.

 

Based on some early maps, it would appear that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were camped at McDuff Camp, which no longer appears on any forest service maps.

 

Based on original letters from RENE DAHINDEN to GEORGE HAAS, (now owned by me) Rene had in his possession a film of the P-G trackway which he took on his European trip to show the P-G film, etc. I now suspect Rene had in his possession a great many things that he forgot about, as I doubt if he ever took inventory of what he had.

 

Stay On The Track,

 

Daniel Perez

Bigfoot Times

www.bigfoottimes.net

Edited by Daniel Perez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Considering that Bob and Roger would drive the roads at night and well after the road crews were gone for the day, I am not surprised to hear that Jay Rowland didn't recall ever seeing them. And I do not know if things are done in California like they are in BC, but in the 17 years of venturing deep into the forest around Harrison Lake - I have seen where timber cruisers have been and marked trees, but never came across one while he or she was doing it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

Based on original letters from RENE DAHINDEN to GEORGE HAAS, (now owned by me) Rene had in his possession a film of the P-G trackway which he took on his European trip to show the P-G film, etc. I now suspect Rene had in his possession a great many things that he forgot about, as I doubt if he ever took inventory of what he had.

 

You are correct about that. Dahinden hoarded as much as he could possibly acquire and if he could not get something be legitimate means, he was not above doing so illegitimately. The justification he would use was that the original owner did not deserve or understand what they had.

 

Not Krantz nor Meldrum after him, no one in Bigfootery has ever amassed a collection comparable to what Dahinden had when he was alive.

It would appear that JAY ROWLAND, Willow Creek, California, knew LYLE LAVERTY and they worked together. No one knew of the connection before 2015. Jay on building roads and keeping roads open and Lyle in assessing what trees would be surveyed for cutting. Both were there all summer long in 1967 and also in the fall (the time in question) and never saw ROGER PATTERSON or BOB GIMLIN, which might suggest that the pair were in the area for less time than previously claimed or suspected. 

 

Patterson claimed a week. Gimlin claims three. This is a very large discrepancy in time. Gimlin's account that they were there from either the last day of September or the first day of October encompasses the time in which Heironimus said he was there. However, Patterson's one week matches the amount of time Heironimus said that Chico was taken from him to Bluff Creek.

 

Daniel, would you describe yourself now as continuing to be a believer of the PGF and if otherwise, how would you describe your position on the PGF and why?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Gimlin's account that they were there from either the last day of September or the first day of October encompasses the time in which Heironimus said he was there. 

 

No, Heironimus said the film was shot the same day it was announced (October 20th) and that's why he took 'the suit' home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Patterson claimed a week. Gimlin claims three. This is a very large discrepancy in time. 

 

Yes but Patterson might have been describing just the time specifically camped at Bluff Creek itself, when they went daily riding up and down the creek, whereas Gimlin might have been describing the time in northern California as a whole, including Blue Creek Mountain and Onion Mountain where they initially headed to after the tracks finds and where they were driving around at night, or other things and places they might have been doing in California. Gimlin never said they were at Bluff Creek specifically for 3 weeks. Green asked him about 'California'.

^^

 

Considering that Bob and Roger would drive the roads at night and well after the road crews were gone for the day, I am not surprised to hear that Jay Rowland didn't recall ever seeing them. And I do not know if things are done in California like they are in BC, but in the 17 years of venturing deep into the forest around Harrison Lake - I have seen where timber cruisers have been and marked trees, but never came across one while he or she was doing it.

 

Yes. This "I never saw it so it can't be" human trait is quite misleading.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Patterson claimed a week. Gimlin claims three.

 

 

In his Newsletter, Roger said it was "a little over a week"...

 

Roger-Newsletter1_zpsp7huq4gz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

"...had been IN THE AREA a little over a week". So where is this imagined controversy again?

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Yes but Patterson might have been describing just the time specifically camped at Bluff Creek itself, when they went daily riding up and down the creek, whereas Gimlin might have been describing the time in northern California as a whole, including Blue Creek Mountain and Onion Mountain where they initially headed to after the tracks finds and where they were driving around at night, or other things and places they might have been doing in California. Gimlin never said they were at Bluff Creek specifically for 3 weeks. Green asked him about 'California'.

 

You are correct in my opinion and from what Iearned from both Green and Dahinden who knew both of these men. When Gimlin described why they were in the area that the film was taken - he stated that they had been up in that area a few times. In my view its no different than Roger saying he saw the creature squatted by the creek and Bob saying it was standing up when he first saw it. This was just another time that a statement is made that could be taken a couple of different ways. I guess when nothing new is able to reported in this field, then a meaningless play on words is introduced to stir the pot or to add excitment.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Squatting or standing, its a description provided from two different view points. Like an event horizon, first one to arrive was Patterson and closely followed by Gimlin.  Who saw what first.. takes maybe a second to transition from squatting to standing..  non-issue.  More babble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Agreed. That was put to rest some time ago and only used as an example towards the time the two men 'were in the area'. Just the area between Onion Mountain - Blue Creek Mountain - and the film site is a pretty big place to cover. The entire regionis even more vast. I could eaily understand a description given for each of these places as 'the area we were in'.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes that is what I was getting at. Patterson said in the area (meaning Bluff Creek I should think) for over a week while Gimlin was talking about California and 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I would be curious to see what Daniel thinks is the significance of his statement:

 

"Both were there all summer long in 1967 and also in the fall (the time in question) and never saw ROGER PATTERSON or BOB GIMLIN, which might suggest that the pair were in the area for less time than previously claimed or suspected"

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I doubt if Rowland or Laverty saw John Green in the area either as I think John was there for about a week and word of the Blue Creek Mountain tracks had gotten around as a lot of people came to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

You are correct about that. Dahinden hoarded as much as he could possibly acquire and if he could not get something be legitimate means, he was not above doing so illegitimately. The justification he would use was that the original owner did not deserve or understand what they had.

 

Patterson claimed a week. Gimlin claims three. This is a very large discrepancy in time. Gimlin's account that they were there from either the last day of September or the first day of October encompasses the time in which Heironimus said he was there. However, Patterson's one week matches the amount of time Heironimus said that Chico was taken from him to Bluff Creek.

 

kitakaze,

 

Are you trying to make Rene sound like a really real bad man as well ?

 

You claimed to have found the second reel, an said it proved it was a hoax(although everything proves it was a hoax in your opinion, yes, yes, I know really, real bigfoots don't exist), I asked you already not long ago, was Chico in the second reel footage ?

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Deleted

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...