Jump to content
Daniel Perez

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

Recommended Posts

Daniel Perez

What you are seeing here from this 2012 screen grab is the OPPOSITE SIDE of Bluff Creek and I suspect this area, too, has been lowered in elevation by Mother Nature. Patty was on one side of the creek while Roger and Bob where on the other side when the initial sighting took place. The debris you see in the image may have been non existent at the time in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
23 hours ago, Daniel Perez said:

What you are seeing here from this 2012 screen grab is the OPPOSITE SIDE of Bluff Creek and I suspect this area, too, has been lowered in elevation by Mother Nature. Patty was on one side of the creek while Roger and Bob where on the other side when the initial sighting took place. The debris you see in the image may have been non existent at the time in question.

 

 

Thanks for your reply, Daniel.  :) 

 

I'll reply more later today, or tomorrow....with an explanation of my thoughts, regarding that image. I haven't had much time to put together a response....I'm in the midst of doing my Christmas shopping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The 1967 film site:

 

We are told Gimlin and Roger planned to go back after the filming.  Gimlin states he barrowed some boxes to cover up the tracks.  Then when it started raining Gimlin states he got up and went there and knowing the cardboard was runined/ wet tried to cover up some tracks with the big pieces of bark.   I don't know what he did with the cardboard.  

 

I don't really know if Gimlin claims he did cover the tracks or if he was attempting to and just gave up as even with the bark the effort was futile with the rains.  If he did cover some tracks I should think anyone coming across the site such a Lyle L would report seeing this.    we would notice if a few tracks in that trackway were covered in bark.  We might leave the bark there or we might remove it to get a closer look at the tracks and pathway. Obviously if it was removed by the first person or two who showed up then it would remained uncovered for the next people who showed up following that removal.

 

The Q is did anyone report removing bark from the trackway or seeing bark covering some of the tracks early on after the event?

 

I had asked this Q a few years back and at the time no one was sure.

 

I think PGF Trackway:

 

 

 

x     x      x       x      x       x      x      x     x      x      x     x        <-------footprints

 

 

or

 

 

  Gimlin covers with bark PGF Trackway:

 

 

 

x    x     0    x       0       0        x      x      x      x      x     x      <-------footprints and covered prints  -------->   O

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

"I knew Patterson said to Al Hodgson that he had covered one or two of the best tracks with bark slabs so I was expecting to see them.  I think I did when I visited about two weeks later and that Titmus had apparently covered some of the prints again after he made casts but my memory isn't very clear on that point.  Sorry." This is how Jim McClarin replied to the matter.

 

"Daniel... I do not recall seeing any cardboard near the site..  at least in the area where we observed the prints..." This is how Lyle Laverty replied to the question.
 
You asked a very good question and one that I do not remember asking either Jim or Lyle in my recorded interviews with them. This is how the both responded on January 25, 2019.
 
Daniel Perez
www.bigfoottimes.net
 
 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

 Gimlin's own version of the "boxes and bark" event.

 

He goes into great detail about it starting around the 20:30 mark here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mbIg6QijU

 

In this particular version of the story Bob says that the boxes were already soaked and useless so he never even took them with him to the sandbar.

 

One oddity here that I haven't heard before is that Gimlin states that Roger wasn't concerned much about covering the tracks since, "the guys will be here in the morning with the dogs."

 

Wasn't Patterson already fully aware at this point that the Canadians would not be coming, per the meeting at Syl McCoy's with Hodgson only a few hours earlier?

 

Why did he tell the Times - Standard reporter at 9:30 the previous night that he was attempting to get Abbot to come down with tracking dogs when he surely must have already known that it wasn't happening...?

 

According to Murphy in Bigfoot Film Journal , the unproductive call to Abbot had already been made by Hodgson much earlier that evening. He would have informed Roger, no?

 

I guess its just another case of faulty memories and human frailty... :mellow:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 1/26/2019 at 11:04 AM, Daniel Perez said:

"I knew Patterson said to Al Hodgson that he had covered one or two of the best tracks with bark slabs so I was expecting to see them.  I think I did when I visited about two weeks later and that Titmus had apparently covered some of the prints again after he made casts but my memory isn't very clear on that point.  Sorry." This is how Jim McClarin replied to the matter.

 

"Daniel... I do not recall seeing any cardboard near the site..  at least in the area where we observed the prints..." This is how Lyle Laverty replied to the question.
 
You asked a very good question and one that I do not remember asking either Jim or Lyle in my recorded interviews with them. This is how the both responded on January 25, 2019.
 
Daniel Perez
www.bigfoottimes.net
 
 


 

 

Thanks Daniel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
23 hours ago, OldMort said:

 Gimlin's own version of the "boxes and bark" event.

 

He goes into great detail about it starting around the 20:30 mark here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mbIg6QijU

 

In this particular version of the story Bob says that the boxes were already soaked and useless so he never even took them with him to the sandbar.

 

One oddity here that I haven't heard before is that Gimlin states that Roger wasn't concerned much about covering the tracks since, "the guys will be here in the morning with the dogs."

 

Wasn't Patterson already fully aware at this point that the Canadians would not be coming, per the meeting at Syl McCoy's with Hodgson only a few hours earlier?

 

Why did he tell the Times - Standard reporter at 9:30 the previous night that he was attempting to get Abbot to come down with tracking dogs when he surely must have already known that it wasn't happening...?

 

According to Murphy in Bigfoot Film Journal , the unproductive call to Abbot had already been made by Hodgson much earlier that evening. He would have informed Roger, no?

 

I guess its just another case of faulty memories and human frailty... :mellow:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good points.   Consider though:

 

Roger did have Patty on film, plaster of the tracks, stomp test, and film of the trackway.  A tired sleeping Roger might not have cared weather dogs might be coming or not.   He had a lot in the bag already.  Maybe roger still thought or hoped dogs might be coming or maybe he just wanted to give Gimlin an answer which would shut bob up and allow roger to be able to go back to bed.

 

All those statements do need more focus as you point out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmknight
On 10/23/2018 at 10:06 PM, MindSquatch said:

Just above where the red circle is in the photo uploaded by Daniel, next to Patty's hand. Zoom in if need be.

Could be a chainsaw, but more than likely one of those old hand-saws. We have trees with those cut-patterns up here in golden Ears Provincial Park. The loggers would cut a notch on one side, with a flat, parallel to the ground, and an angled cut above it, then cut along the flat on the opposite side of the tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Is there still some dispute about the PGF site exact location or are we at a point where nearly everyone agrees where it is?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The actual site has been located to a 100% certainty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
19 minutes ago, Bill said:

The actual site has been located to a 100% certainty

 

After seeing the YouTube video where you, Daniel Perez, and many others go to the site it sure looks like it to me.  (For instance some trees are still identified exactly).

 

I have just saw old BFF postings offereded where there is a MK Davis site, a Munns site, and so on.  It looked like to me when Finding Bigfoot (the only episode I have ever watched) was there with Gimlin it was not even the site; maybe just close to it.

 

I just wondered if there is now universal acceptance of the site.  I have no doubt you have proved it to me.  I just didn't know if there were still any influential the-world-is-flat holdouts who did not accept that location.

 

I seem to even remember a bigfoot show where they flew to the site with a helicopter and used a Base Station to draw the site.  Again, if I remember it correctly it didn't look like the site offered in the YouTube video of the Munns-Perez, et. al. site.  Maybe I saw it wrong or maybe they were just in the area and called it good since it changed so much from 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

First, calling anything "the Munns Site" is inappropriate, because a fine team of explorers basically identified the site before I got there. I merely verified their excellent survey and exploration work, and I identified a few trees and landmarks not previously verified. 

 

As to universal acceptance, we sadly live in a world where universal acceptance is likely a nostalgic memory, because people seem empowered to think they can claim false things as true, just to win an argument or advance an agenda. But any disciplined factual evaluation of the site (as well as other suggested locations) will verify that the site has been verified to a 100% certainty.

 

So people can believe it or not as they choose, but it is the site, and PGF research can reliably be done there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

What it settles is any dialogue that says the PGF could have been filmed anywhere else. That dialogue is history since the PGF could only have been filmed exactly where Bob and Roger said it was filmed. It also serves to support timelines and other locations in the area like store as well as Lyle Laverty's claim of taking pictures of the trackway. I thank everyone whose diligence in the process of nailing down the sit made it all happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Yep, that was some great work by Steven Streufert, and his crew....finding/measuring and documenting the filmsite.  :) 

 

From the video I posted a while ago...here is a montage of screen captures, showing the main sandbar.....specifically...the 'debris pile', and the now eroded-away portion where Roger filmed F352 from...

 

Sandbar-Debris-Pile-Montage1-D.jpg

 

 

This view is looking predominately backwards from the direction the camera was pointing, in the film.

 

On Steven's Facebook page, several months ago....he highlighted the debris pile for me...(in green)...confirming that what I had labeled in my screen capture montage was correct...

 

Streufert_DebrisPile_Labeled1B.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

It's just excellent work and excellent news. Couple of weeks ago I promised Steven a book. Now I HAVE to send him one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...