Jump to content

Where Is The Patterson-Gimlin Film Site?


BigfootBookman

Where is the PGF Site?  

14 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

BigfootBookman

Parn,

I'm being perfectly "light" here. I'm not one of those machos who gets all upset if anyone questions their "field" or boy scout abilities. I'm just trying to make sense of all of this, and to sort the wheat from the chaff in all of these wildly divergent opinions and recollections about the PGF site. Why is it that there are at least five "locations"? There can be only ONE film site. I just spent four hours talking on the phone with another fellow who claims the REAL site is downstream from the general consensus area, in the spot M.K. Davis supports. The more I hear the more confusing it gets sometimes--two "facts" saying different things about one thing cannot both be facts. There are so many pieces to the puzzle, and the final thing is fragmentary at best. Why does the site keep "moving"?

From my sense of the PGF Patterson is running north to north-east, then settles in to film the creature heading basically eastward.

Perhaps I am wrong about that.

I'm more about the history of the thing, not ever claiming to do film analysis like Bill Munns.

I may be slightly biased in looking at the picture and trying to match it to things seen on-site--I will freely admit that, and try always to keep my mind open to other possibilities.

The shadow research people should have a better idea in that other thread here in the PGF section.

But...

I have been all up and down Bluff Creek. In the area most propose to be the film site (if we assume this is correct), the trees are up on the south side of the site. These in question (the ones casting the shadows in the lower left corner of the

"areial" image), if we are at the right spot, are on the hill behind the site, to the south and west. I do not know the exact time of day in this photo, nor the time of year Dahinden was there. However, when one is on the ground at that site in the afternoon (like after 2:00, and in the later summer and fall) those trees up there cast shadows exactly like those seen in the "aerial" photo down onto the site. The shadows are angling off sideways to the right, indicating that the sun has begun to decline in the west. No???

I only just now began to think about the shadows in this photo, as I noticed that other BFF thread. It's a good clue.

Prior to that, when we were there, we found the perspective (angle and height) of the view from the hill down from the road above to be perfect for this gravel bar. The dimensions looked exactly right. The curved front of the bar and the tree cluster in the back were in just the right places, and with the right distances between them. All the other landmarks matched up perfectly with Bob Gimlin's accounts (a big bend, root balls, the bank Patterson runs up) and the distances known from within the film.

I will hand the shadow analysis of this photo over to the experts, though. Or maybe you will help enlighten us?

I will say this: the assumption that Patterson was filming due north is only roughly correct. In my opinion.

Of course, perhaps we are on the wrong site, and then the directions would not work with the known trackway where we and nearly everyone else have been looking.

Best,

Steve, Bigfoot Books

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Driftin',

I'm really not sure the terrain HAS changed all that much, save for erosion of some of the old 1964 flood-produced sand and gravel bars. The OLD trees should not have changed significantly--they are old-growth Douglas Fir, most likely looking very similar indeed, if they are still standing.

The creek is generally down at the bottom of a narrow canyon with steep walls. Most of the time it is very clear that the creek is in the course it was in back in the day, and has been for a very long time.

The film site itself is overgrown with trees and understory vegetation--THAT is what makes it so confusing to people on-site. It just doesn't look right. Seen from above, down from the road, the general consensus site looks much better, and perspective may be obtained to some degree.

In any case, we used the Dahinden photo from above to rule out other locations, ones where there was not a hill on the right side of the creek with sufficiently steep walls so close in to the sandbar and creek below. The MK Davis site, for instance, does not have such an appropriate hillside until one travels way back from the creek. Hence, it could not be the site. We know that Dahinden knew where it was.

Dahinden DID put in rebar poles on-site driven into the ground. This is known; but I've never heard anything convincing from anyone claiming to have found ithose poles again. And some have tried, with metal detectors. MK Davis' crew found some metal cable, but that is logging wire, not rebar. There is a YouTube video on the bottom of my current blog post showing the MK "discovery" of these cables. Of course, there is a log of old logging cable buried out there in the creekbed from the 1960s and earlier. Sean Fries has a commemorative plaque he wants to put on the site, but what if the downstream "MK" site he adheres to is incorrect? We DID recently find a rebar pole driven into the ground right where Barbara Wasson's book says the P-G base camp was; and who was Wasson's source? Rene Dahinden, of course. Could Rene have driven this rebar in there? I find it quite plausible, and very intriguing.

I don't think, in any case, that any of the findings we could possibly make on the site, even if perfectly documented, will ever measure up to the ones that were made there by Dahinden, Green, Titmus and Byrne, back in the days before it became a jungle in there.

Best,

Steve, BF Books

Steve, Just a small question to ask, did anyone you have interviewed ever say whether or not they had established any type of permanent marker there?

its hard to establish its location from just photos after all this time, the terrain seems to have changed so much...

have you found topo maps from that time period and overlay-ed then from a topo map from this time period?....to see if the creek has re routed itself?

and also wanted to add, this is wonderful that you are doing this!! if the exact site can be found and verified, I have a feeling that we are a lot closer to solving this mystery!! if the exact site can be verified , and some of the same markers can be used to give us accurate measurements, we can find out so much new info, like exactly where the camera was in relation to the creature...

good luck on your quest Steve!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice for the Fed's to give us a permit to napalm a stretch of the creek from the gulch to the Bowling Alley. That way only the old growth, stumps, logs and gravel bar would be left, and we could easily confirm the site.

Seriously though, if some form of clearing was allowed in the creek bed, things would be a lot easier. Creek beds and clearing don't mix too well with Federal, State or County Planning commissions though, at least here in Washington State.

Maybe next summer someone could accidentally let their campfire get out of hand near the site? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Yes! Many a time there we have wished for a chain saw!

With the road down now closed and restored to natural contours around the washes flowing into the creek we can be assured there will be no more logging down in there, however.

Fire, and flood, these are our hopes for ever seeing that open bar again.

And Parnassus.. I think I should have said Dahinden's photo is looking north, more or less, FROM east of Patterson's location.

In the film Roger runs north apprx up the bank and follows Patty a ways basically parallel to her north-eastward course, then turns east as she retreats that way. No?

Steve, BF Bookman

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

From the quote below, do I understand correctly that Parnassus has been to the film site area? And if so, where do you think it is, Parnassus?

All viewpoints are decidedly welcomed at this point, especially if they disagree with what my associates and I are currently thinking.

Can you put an "X" on the map for all of us?

s.

Parn,

Do you think he came as close as you did when you were there?......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Parn,

Do you think he came as close as you did when you were there?......

drift, where did I say I was ever there?

I'm pointing out that if he is depending on a real compass bearing showing a northeast direction of the aerial photo, then he may be at the wrong spot, because it is clear from the shadows and from the marked locations of Patterson and the subject that the camera pov is directed much more west than he seems to believe.

But as it turns out, he didn't actually take a bearing from the aerial photo camera location. So it's a moot point. It seems he was depending on his best guess, which doesn't turn out to be accurate, imo. I tried to tease him a bit about his directional sense in the woods, but I guess that is just creating defensiveness, so I'll just say, "whatever" on his Daniel Boone skills and appreciate his considerable efforts on this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

We knew our bearings in the area, and were using north as from the top of the topo maps in regard to the site on the ground before us. We weren't using magnetic north at that point. We of course did not know the exact position Dahinden was in, so it would seem he was just a bit to our east, but apparently looking down at the same sandbar. The fact is that there are not enough extant referent points between one single photo and an altered landscape (tree overgrowth mostly) to say for sure at this point. It looked good to us on site, and now we will use that as a lead to go in and look more closely and measure things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

And this: do we really know what the camera directions were that Patterson took at the various stages of the film?

My assumption has always been northeast moving to east.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

And this: do we really know what the camera directions were that Patterson took at the various stages of the film?

My assumption has always been northeast moving to east.

If you look at the solar angle thread, you should be able to get a better idea. The NOAA site can give you the solar angles and thus the shadow angles for that time and day. Diagramming the shadows in the frames surrounding the famous 352 should give an approximation of which way is north. Then take a look at the Dahinden aerial view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

I'm waiting for results on the shadow thread here on BFF/P-G Film.

But this complicates things, doesn't it? Magnetic North, True North, and Grid North.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/True_North

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/North_Pole

http://en.wikipedia..../Magnetic_north

Here's an image from the Perez BF at Bluff Creek booklet, showing magnetic north, I believe:

post-37-004089400 1289782885_thumb.jpg

Here's the same place showing standard grid north, I presume:

post-37-040967300 1289782899_thumb.jpg

We were generally using this image, blown up from the US Forest Service topo:

post-37-094008500 1289782925_thumb.jpg

What we have been calling the "bowling alley," that straight line feature right after the general consensus film site area, runs straight north on the topo maps; but it is considerably off north if viewed by the first map, above.

Does anyone know when Dahinden was there in 1971 (according to Murphy's book), and what time the image was taken?

I'm sending an email to Christopher Murphy now to see if I can find out.

Myself? My brain already hurts dealing with all of these other historical details, most of which seem to disagree in some way or other. I was a straight-A Math and Science kid until my junior year in high school, and then I had a major re-evaluation and dropped that course direction, escaping Trigonometry and Calculus. I switched over to the Humanities and Arts and Philosophy. Much more fun. I was a cub scout, never getting near the Eagle level. I'm not interested in survivalism and para-military outdoor skills---I'm more of a nature-boy poet, and have never once gotten lost in the woods, despite countless chances and sometimes foolhardy expeditions. So, I'll leave the calculations and software geeking to Parnassus and Bill Munns.

BILL==we'd LOVE to have you along for our spring and summer excursions next year!!!

We're hoping to get Mr. Perez to come along, too.

Let's settle this thing once and for all.

Best,

Steve, Bigfoot Books

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve:

"BILL==we'd LOVE to have you along for our spring and summer excursions next year!!!"

I'm still hoping and praying to get there, just gotta figure the costs of getting up your way.

But hold a seat for me.

:)

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Bill,

We'd be HAPPY to take you up there, and even happier if you can bring any high technology to scan the site.

Or, rather, I should say SITES, plural. Though, hopefully, we have narrowed them down considerably to only two plausible areas.

Today I talked with Bobo, and he has told me the exact spot that Gimlin told him (ON-SITE in Bluff Creek) where they first saw the Creature. This provides further evidence that it may be the upper sand bar for which we have been using the working title, "Cliff Barackman Site." This is right next to the possible track-way I outlined here earlier. I still believe both are possible, and memories can blur. It narrows it down a lot, I think, in any case.

Be in touch!

s.

Steve:

"BILL==we'd LOVE to have you along for our spring and summer excursions next year!!!"

I'm still hoping and praying to get there, just gotta figure the costs of getting up your way.

But hold a seat for me.

:)

Bill

Edited by BigfootBookman
Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

post-37-002078800 1290462364_thumb.jpgHere is the first video of our escapades, filmed and edited by Robert Leiterman.

Bluff Creek Film Site Project Intro Part 1 09-15-2010

There are two more introductory information pieces in the hopper, ready to go but still marked "private" for any last-minute edits.

After these there will be many more of us actually on the ground at the film site and in the Bluff Creek basin.

I hope you find these enjoyable, and hopefully informative. Future entries will appear on the BFRO-VIDEOS page on YouTube,

http://www.youtube.com/user/BFROVIDEOS

Best,

Steve

Bigfoot Books

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Two more YouTube segments added via BFRO-VIDEOS.

These continue the preliminary studies of the old maps, film site photos, and Google Earth imagery. The next segments following these will be up in the actual Bluff Creek basin and at the various proposed film site locations.

Next up: Robert Leiterman hikes up Bluff Creek from the Bluff Creek Bridge to the Patterson-Gimlin Film Site area.

More preliminary studies may be found here:

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/

including a new post coming very soon covering our reconnaissance during a rainy Day One on the film site, a personal history, and an overview of the film site location problem.

Best,

Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek

Edited by BigfootBookman
Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Here is a rough "sketch" overlay of the Dahinden "aerial" photo of the site in 1971 (possibly 1972) and the topo map I've been using for the site. The scale and perspective are of course not exact. I'm trying to demonstrate the orientation of the camera view generally toward the north, along with the track-way logically configured between the creek and the background trees within the topography of the actual site as we saw it. I hope this will satisfy Parnassus and the others with questions about the shadow direction and directional location of the film subject. This is just one of our working theories at the is point, and it needs to be measured on the ground for full verification. This is just one of a few plausible track-way locations we found, just downstream from the "Cliff Barackman Site" (identification, we found out, came from Gimlin in 2003, via James Bobo Fay) and the Christopher Murphy location just downstream.

post-37-024302800 1290635691_thumb.jpg

Best,

Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/

Here's my previous sketch, rough layout only, for reference...

post-37-041823700 1290636250_thumb.jpg

Edited by BigfootBookman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...