Jump to content
BigfootBookman

Where Is The Patterson-Gimlin Film Site?

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

Again, here is the Dahinden photo.

post-37-023223500 1290636414_thumb.jpg

Here it is with Murphy's location of the camera, subject, and track-way direction.

post-37-029158700 1290636517_thumb.jpg

Edited by BigfootBookman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

BF-BM,

You also have to take into account the distance and elevation. The photo was definitely not taken from the creek bed. From the elevation lines on the topo map and the apparent elevation of the photo, it looks as though it may have been taken from the old road. Maybe someday you can walk along that road grade and see what you can tell. I would guess that if you extended the words GRAVEL BAR east to the "dashed" road, that would be about where the Dahinden photo was taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Parnassus,

Yes I'm aware of the perspective issues--that graphic was only an illustrative sketch, the best I can do with limited image processing software. You are correct, I believe: upon podering this for a while now, I think your location of Dahinden's viewing angle is right, but not from quite as high up as that road. We have been up and down that road many a time. We went down the hill a bit to his west, it turns out. Going down the hill bushwhacking one gets a pretty clear idea of his elevation position.

I think, after thinking about shadows and camera directions more after your posts, that this potential trackway orientation is by far the best of the lot we are looking at currently. Of course, we could be wrong, and MK or the others may be right; or perhaps we are all wrong and the actual site is lost? We need to get in there with compass and a 300-foot measure and check it, and to confirm those background trees in early Spring before the leaf buds open. Hopefully we can then get Bill Munns in with some high-tech gear to verify and document it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

NEW POST ON BIGFOOT'S BLOG!

Permalinked...

http://bigfootbooksb...ect-update.html

or just

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com

Find links to all of our first eight BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT segments of video. Also: A HISTORY OF SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST, How a Bear Can Pass for Bigfoot, G-O Road Snowed-in, and MORE! Or just watch them here....

You can watch the Introduction segments 1-3 via this link:

http://bigfootbooksb...-film-site.html

Here is PART FOUR of the Bluff Creek Film Site Project. Watch Robert Leiterman as he walks up the creek from the Bluff Creek Bridge to the Patterson-Gimlin Film site.

Here is Part Five of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT, wherein we hike down the dirt road above the site and observe the sand bar and creek canyon below, and finally reach the bat boxes landing on the creek.

Here is PART SIX of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT, wherein three Bigfooting nerds really geek out in the rain nitpicking over the details given us by Peter Byrne for his location of the Patterson-Gimlin Film site.

Here is PART SEVEN of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here at the "Peter Byrne Site" we compare old photos to new landscapes, stumble upon stumps, and dig in the sand searching for the very ground Patty walked upon in the PGF.

Many, many more of these are on their way. The above represents only part of the first couple of days.

Best to all!

Steve, Bigfoot Books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Here is PART EIGHT of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we bumble and wade up the creek, through the maze of fallen trees and wood debris, and come to the ostensible site as identified by Christopher Murphy in his book KNOW THE SASQUATCH/BIGFOOT. Still no conclusive proof of the PGF location.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ3GNLxZd4o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Steve:

"We need to get in there with compass and a 300-foot measure and check it, and to confirm those background trees in early Spring before the leaf buds open. Hopefully we can then get Bill Munns in with some high-tech gear to verify and document it."

I looked at some of your videos. Quite a challenge to find the site. I'm still looking forward to getting in there myself to see what there is and see if we can nail down the true locaion.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Thanks for posting those video Steve. Very interesting. I haven't watched them all yet. I started with the last one. The rest I'll catch later. Looks extremely difficult pinpointing the exact spot. Harder than I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

Bill, I'm beginning to think that Daniel Perez really knows all. At least in this regard. However, I am trying to get him to clarify it for me, to a pinpoint. I am hoping he will just come up there with us and we call all prove the darn thing once and for all; or argue about it for another four decades. More below...

Steve:

"We need to get in there with compass and a 300-foot measure and check it, and to confirm those background trees in early Spring before the leaf buds open. Hopefully we can then get Bill Munns in with some high-tech gear to verify and document it."

I looked at some of your videos. Quite a challenge to find the site. I'm still looking forward to getting in there myself to see what there is and see if we can nail down the true locaion.

:)Bill

Kerchak, it's really a process of elimination we are going through to show all of the varied site locations that have been proposed. We three are pretty sure (though not in concrete agreement yet) that we have it narrowed down to two pretty darn precise locations. It's kind of like a game of Whack-A-Mole, however. Since I've put this stuff up on my blog and Robert Leiterman has posted his video I've received THREE MORE SITE PROPOSITIONS. It's just truly bizarre. I can say this much right now: two are major, well known researchers, and they are saying things that differ pretty widely from the others. Both of these have requested anonymity so far. One is about 1.5 miles downstream (!!!) from the other sites, and one is probably about a half mile even farther upstream. Egads!

Thanks for posting those video Steve. Very interesting. I haven't watched them all yet. I started with the last one. The rest I'll catch later. Looks extremely difficult pinpointing the exact spot. Harder than I thought.

Perhaps our photos of the site in earlier spring, without the deciduous tree leaves blocking the view to the background trees will be enough for you, Bill, to do your analytical magic and align the background trees, establish the trackway dimensions on site, and finish this thing? I hope so. I hope there is not too much snow in there to permit us access at least via mountain bikes.

People have asked: "WHY?" I say, because it is there... or IS IT?

Here, by the way, courtesy of Daniel Perez, is Richard Henry's drawing from the November 2004 BIGFOOT TIMES. Back issues via "http://bigfoottimes.net/" for a buck fifty. It is a rough sketch with some interesting details, done 37 years after his visit to the site with Jim McClarin in Richard's Jeep, November 5, 1967. Click image to enlarge it!

post-37-092575200 1291102292_thumb.jpg

Daniel Perez says: "YES, you have my permission to use the map and I consider it VERY accurate as I already knew, more or less, what it should look like, so this was a test for him, to see how well his memory worked over such a long amount of time. Henry was never able to pinpoint where the corral was, but I have no doubt about it. When I spoke with Gimlin, he mentioned they NEVER made a makeshift corral, only that the horses were tied to a tree."

Best,

Steve, Bigfoot Books,

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Daniel Perez says: "YES, you have my permission to use the map and I consider it VERY accurate as I already knew, more or less, what it should look like, so this was a test for him, to see how well his memory worked over such a long amount of time.

Well, this is quite a nice item; now we have to get Henry to interpret the handwriting. Or can Perez do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bill,

Does this also help with direction for you, North bein' suggested at top of map, the sun angle stuff you were tryin' ta figure out. With the road visible in the map, be nice if someone could find a real map from around the time to try an line thin's up.

Pat...

ps The writin' doesn't seem to hard ta read parnassus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Pat:

It sort of confirms the general sense of direction, but not the exact sun angle or true north in relation to the landscape elements we see in the PGF or McClarin footage. It's the correlation of true north to the specific trees that we need for the precision we are trying to establish.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

It's strange that Daniel says north would be the top of Henry's page (does he?), as it makes more sense to me if the creek direction at that point is northward, with the area where Daniel's caption is as North. Perhaps that is what Daniel means in his caption, because this drawing was originally published with Perez' words on top, running horizontally. I flipped it sideways so that Henry's text would be legible. This would make sense if Patterson's camera direction was to the northern direction in the film, too. Has the true camera direction been established without doubt yet, Bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Steve:

"Has the true camera direction been established without doubt yet, Bill? "

Not precisely, but somewhere in the range of 15 degrees of true north (east or westward) would be a reasonable estimation to guide us.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigfootBookman

I was thinking that the text, "NORTHERLY," in the Henry drawing might perhaps refer to the direction of the creek after that bend at the end.

In other words, "northerly" refers to the direction the arrow is pointing.

If that is not the case, then I can't place this drawing on the known/proposed film site location(s) up where Perez proposes it.

Steve

BF Book-man

Steve:

"Has the true camera direction been established without doubt yet, Bill? "

Not precisely, but somewhere in the range of 15 degrees of true north (east or westward) would be a reasonable estimation to guide us.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was thinking that the text, "NORTHERLY," in the Henry drawing might perhaps refer to the direction of the creek after that bend at the end.

In other words, "northerly" refers to the direction the arrow is pointing.

If that is not the case, then I can't place this drawing on the known/proposed film site location(s) up where Perez proposes it.

Steve

BF Book-man

Steve,

I believe the directional intent of the map is that the word "Northerly" up top refers to North. The arrow you see pointing West is actually pointing to where the tracks disappeared in the "soft forest floor, bad timber", and is NOT a North Arrow that you would typically see on a map. It's human nature even for the untrained to draw a sketch with North pointing up. The map description text on the left side of the page confuses the matter of direction. Henry's method of grammar is odd to say the least, but I think I have it all except for a couple of words.

Also keep in mind that the map scale is not consistent. His distance from Point A to Point B is described as 200'-300', while the distance from the corral to where the tracks start is 100' to 200 yards. The scale of the map shows otherwise. There is also a very good chance that his vision of "Northerly" is off too.

It's also interesting that he recalls the stride being 53" to 58". Could he have meant "step" instead of "stride"? Step being left heel to right heel and stride being left heel to left heel. A 53" stride would be consistent with a normal human female stride. A 53" step would be extraordinary. I thought the consensus was that Patty's "step" was 41", which doesn't match Henry's memory at all.

There are too many inconsistencies in this map to consider it reliable IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...