Jump to content

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018


Daniel Perez

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

Can someone mark this screenshot up with the Patty walk path and other film particulars? I'd be interested to see those highlights. 

Screen Shot 2020-02-10 at 11.01.55 PM.png

 

Sure, TAP....I can highlight some of the key points in that scene....later on today, or tonight.  I already have made some graphics, like that...and posted them on another forum. 

 

For now, here is one that I just marked-up....(the view is turned 90-degrees, from how it's seen in your screen capture)...

 

Aerial-View-Filmsite5-B.jpg

 

 

One note:  From looking at Topographical maps....it can be seen that the "Bowling Alley" strip of the creek runs 'Due North'. So, that direction is definitely accurate.

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearfoot
7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Glad you enjoyed the video, Bearfoot. :)  Welcome to the forum, btw! 

 

That is a great overview of the filmsite....and the vastness of the mountains/wilderness, there.

 

I think it helps dispute the lame argument by the skeptics, and scoftics….that it is "highly suspicious" that Roger never returned to that particular spot, to try to find Patty again. 

 

As if finding any Sasquatch in such a vast mountainous forest was going to be "a snap". Just go back to that point of the creek...and wait for Patty to re-appear.  :wacko:  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

I think it helps dispute the lame argument by the skeptics, and scoftics….that it is "highly suspicious" that Roger never returned to that particular spot, to try to find Patty again. 

 

As if finding any Sasquatch in such a vast mountainous forest was going to be "a snap". Just go back to that point of the creek...and wait for Patty to re-appear.  :wacko:  


 

If we look at the PGF as a formula to “ find Bigfoot” then remote woods seems to be a given.  It also suggests creeks, streams, and water might be important beyond the “ all living things need water” thought.  After all, that is where Patty was at the encounter and water is available many other places.

 

In this way, if we had the budget where a lot of cameras placed in remote woods like bluff creek (esp if there had been reports of a sighting or recent activity) one might luck out if they are placed cameras near streams and creeks.  This might also allow a line of site where the woods Might be too dark and dense by comparison.

 

I have to think it started to dawn on Roger and Bob the futility of going back to bluff creek the next day.  If they couldn’t “see It again” right after the encounter knowing which way it had just passed/ walked away, what are the chances of seeing it again a whole day later in that forrest.  The GPS pic of the area shows a lot of challenges in the mind of this city slicker.  To demand Roger and Bob go back seems like asking a lot.  They thought they had it on film at 100ft which looked even more detailed to their real life encounter.  Even though they had not watched what they had, they must have felt in their exhausted state they had as much as they were going to get and what they had would be convincing.

 

i also think the map as shown makes me think Roger and Bob seemed to think they tracked Patty farther then they really did.  It would get dark soon and even a short distance would seem to be longer since this is the hilly woods and not a flat desert.  When I read about some saying they tracked her for miles, I tend to think regardless of the source this has to be inaccurate.  If not, maybe someone can post a similar map where they outline how much further they were thought to goIn that search.  Also, where was Patty thought to had gone on the map as it is extended out?  Where might the wet footprint or other signs of known?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearfoot

Thanks SweatyYeti for the welcome! And just saw Backdoc's post. I always thought the sand bar was a very unique spot. It also made sense if you had horses back then. Such a wide and fairly open spot for a stream that size. I remember when I was there that after you got past the upper end of the sand bar the stream became smaller with much steeper sides which would have been more difficult for the horses. Really have some great memories from that 1972 trip when I was much younger. Once I was going down stream and a bear was coming upstream and we came very close before seeing each other. Both our heads were looking down and the water was a little noisy. Not sure which of us was scared the most! lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

In this way, if we had the budget where a lot of cameras placed in remote woods like bluff creek (esp if there had been reports of a sighting or recent activity) one might luck out if they are placed cameras near streams and creeks.  This might also allow a line of site where the woods Might be too dark and dense by comparison.

 

 

The folks from the Bluff Creek Project have had trail cams at the film site and surrounding areas for many years now.

 

You can even sponsor your own camera if you like.  https://bluffcreekproject.blogspot.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
17 hours ago, Bearfoot said:

Thanks SweatyYeti for the welcome! And just saw Backdoc's post. I always thought the sand bar was a very unique spot. It also made sense if you had horses back then. Such a wide and fairly open spot for a stream that size. I remember when I was there that after you got past the upper end of the sand bar the stream became smaller with much steeper sides which would have been more difficult for the horses. Really have some great memories from that 1972 trip when I was much younger. Once I was going down stream and a bear was coming upstream and we came very close before seeing each other. Both our heads were looking down and the water was a little noisy. Not sure which of us was scared the most! lol!

 

You're welcome, Bearfoot. :) 

 

That must have been a great experience for you, being at the film-site only a few years after the film was shot. 

 

This animation of pictures taken of the filmsite in '67.....'71.....and around '73 or '74...(the pic with Peter Byrne)….show how the filmsite changed in that short period of time...

 

PGF_Filmsite-Dahinden-ByrnePhoto-F352-Ov

 

 

The trees on the sandbar all came down...as an after-effect of that great flood in 1963. (Even the two young trees, seen on either side of the 'Big Tree', came down.) The flood deposited so much new soil onto the sandbar, that the trees all began to die-off due to a deprivation of oxygen in the soil. 

 

https://apnews.com/30b5a207ff4f4680972250b89846770a

 

So, in 1967...pretty much all of the trees that were on the sandbar itself, were in a dying state.

 

I'm curious...on your 2nd visit to the site....in 1976....did you happen to notice the new brush growth on the sandbar? 

 

 

From your earlier post:

Quote

That flood in 1963 took out several bridges in California and Oregon back then which explains the sandbar. Looks like Mother Nature has got back to normal since then with the trees and brush. I will try and find a couple pics I took back then and post them here.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing those pictures you took, Bearfoot. :)   Hope you can find them!

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
17 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

The folks from the Bluff Creek Project have had trail cams at the film site and surrounding areas for many years now.

 

You can even sponsor your own camera if you like.  https://bluffcreekproject.blogspot.com/

 

 

IF I had Bill Gates- type money I would pour some big dollars into 3 areas on the bigfoot issue:

 

1)  a contest to pay the top suit makers of today to attempt to make a Patty suit with 1967 materials in a same or similar way as Patty to help decide once and for all if it could be done.  We can argue if it has already been decided but such an effort would really be a put- up or shut- up effect at least on that issue.  This might be a pay by the job or by a contest money or both.

 

2)  an MIT-type smart person who could create an expansive plan using tech in an effort to capture bigfoot on camera or otherwise.  I agree cameras might be a great idea but I would just think it would take 1000's of them and that is going to cost some big time money for everything involved.  Most regular people would have that money for even a few cameras and it might take 1000's just in an area of moderate size.

 

3)  Finally I would throw some big time dollars to Bill Munns as I consider his efforts both a) science- based and logic- based approach to the study of the Bigfoot/Patty subject while b) being completely impartial where as a non-fanatic I can trust he would go where the facts take him and have no need to provide any outcome.  While I would hope that is common on both sides of the Bigfoot issue, I consider it actually rare.

 

Realistically I don't think a rare animal like Bigfoot should it exist could be easily caught on film even with a very large camera effort.   The world is a big place.  I would consider it a long shot along the lines of a tagged fishing contest:  They sometimes tag a fish and then release it into a large lake.  The person would captures that fish in say 24hrs might win $10,000 with a $25 entry fee.   I don't follow these things closely but I imagine the fish is rarely caught and if so is not caught in the time required in the contest.  It would be assumed more lines in the water (like more cameras in the woods) increase the chance of finding another Patty.  Finally a lake is contained while the woods might spread out over the entire PNW further making a capture on camera less likely.  It still a viable idea though proven by other science who now and then capture animals thought to be near extinct or animals who have not been seen in an area for 50 years.

 

I didn't know that about the camera sponsor thing though.  That is interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
19 hours ago, Bearfoot said:

Thanks SweatyYeti for the welcome! And just saw Backdoc's post. I always thought the sand bar was a very unique spot. It also made sense if you had horses back then. Such a wide and fairly open spot for a stream that size. I remember when I was there that after you got past the upper end of the sand bar the stream became smaller with much steeper sides which would have been more difficult for the horses. Really have some great memories from that 1972 trip when I was much younger. Once I was going down stream and a bear was coming upstream and we came very close before seeing each other. Both our heads were looking down and the water was a little noisy. Not sure which of us was scared the most! lol!

 

 

Welcome to the BFF Bear.   Great to have your thoughts and participation esp since you had been at the scene of the crime early on.  In the JFK shooting things are now at that site just about how they were when Kennedy was shot with very little change.    As far as Bluff Creek, you are among a select few who where there when the "PGF site" was in fact still somewhat "the Site"   In present time and for some time, it is nothing like what was in 1967.  In fact, on a video of the verification of the PGF available on YouTube, it is pointed out the filming location of Roger today is 6-8 lower.  That is, the massive flood had a flood soil deposit in 1967. When Roger stood in that area he was standing on soil which has eroded and wash away in time.  That means where Roger actually started filming (or near started) was actually above the head level if you stood on the spot today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

The trees on the sandbar all came down...as an after-effect of that great flood in 1963

 

Correction.   The big flood was '64, not '63.   We got a lot of low snow in December 1964, then the rain came in the way of a Pinapple Express .. copious amounts of warm rain on soggy snow.   All hell broke loose.   

 

MIB

Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

Yes, the flood was in 1964 and you can fact check that piece of information. In addition, Al Hodgson's general store was at the time in question, October 1967, on the SOUTH SIDE of highway 299 as was the PAY PHONE that Roger Patterson used to phone Al Hodgson. ROBERT LEITERMAN is working on a book, likely to be self published, about the rediscovery of the P-G filmsite. You folks should think of getting this in your personal library, if you haven't already.

 

There are quite a few people on record having visited the P-G filmsite when all was still very much as it was when the film was made: John Green; Jim McClarin; Bob Titmus; Ken ****; Peter Byrne, René Dahinden; Al Hodgson, to name a few. A lot of great extraction of data from those trips and Robert Leiterman and Steven Streufert & company have done an EXTRAORDINARY job of rediscovering the site in addition to verifying all the measurements that René made when he was there, in addition to a great many more measurements.

 

Backdoc, if you win the lotto, you might also consider showering some money at Robert Leiterman and Steven Streufert for the aforementioned comments.

 

Daniel Perez

www.bigfoottimes.net

perez952@sbcglobal.net

 

 

BABC+Postcard.jpeg

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 minute ago, Daniel Perez said:

 

 

Backdoc, if you win the lotto, you might also consider showering some money at Robert Leiterman and Steven Streufert for the aforementioned comments.

 

Daniel Perez

www.bigfoottimes.net

perez952@sbcglobal.net

 

 

 

 

 

HA, OK will do.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
18 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Correction.   The big flood was '64, not '63.   We got a lot of low snow in December 1964, then the rain came in the way of a Pinapple Express .. copious amounts of warm rain on soggy snow.   All hell broke loose.   

 

MIB

 

 

Thanks for the correction, MIB.  :)   So, you lived in that area, back then?

 

I never realized just how extreme that flood was...

 

https://www.times-standard.com/2014/12/18/the-thousand-year-flood-of-1964/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ Yes, we were in the lower Rogue canyon ... maybe 100 miles north of Bluff Creek.     I was very young .. my first memories, almost certainly further impressed by family retelling, are of that flood.    The main memory, other than the sheer tension, was the ground vibration from boulders in the creek being pushed by floodwaters tipping over and hitting hard.   Some of those boulders were as large as a small house.   When they rolled and hit, it was .. big.

 

MIB

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor locked and unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...