Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Odinn, I've read that you figure Gimlin was about 10 feet away from Patterson when he filmed the plaster pour scene. I have illustrated where that would be using Munns' trackway stitch. I used the plaster pool (cast) as a ruler and measured backwards from its heel. Do you agree then that this shows about where Gimlin would have been standing?


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/ba0ab50c.png

A bit closer I think.



If the camera height was 5' and the angle to the toes of the cast was 23 deg, then the distance to the heel of the cast was 10.5'.

More importantly, this distance was derived geometrically without knowing the size of the camera lens. Now if we matched it to a photogrammetric solution we have the lens.

[LTC8K6]

This shows the flowing creek as well. From an earlier debate about Patty. WP thought she was off frame, I think she's the blurry bit in the blue circle.



I believe the stream is flowing from/to the black arrow area between banks noted by the blue and red dots.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

WP thought she was off frame, I think she's the blurry bit in the blue circle.

She is the blurry bit in the blue circle.

Quote:

I believe the stream is flowing from/to the black arrow area between banks noted by the blue and red dots.

I still disagree with that. I don't think the rise/bank/berm is concealing the creek as you illustrate. We can work some more on this.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

If the camera height was 5' and the angle to the toes of the cast was 23 deg, then the distance to the heel of the cast was 10.5'.

Why would Gimlin hold the camera at 5' height? Wouldn't he be expected to hold it up to his eye to use the viewfinder?

[William Parcher]

I'm confused about why we don't see a certain ground feature in the plaster pour scene. There is a significant rock or debris or sand mound that is visible in the trackway pan but not in the pour scene. It's so big that it seems to cast one of the biggest shadows seen. I think it should be visible in front of Roger's left foot or even his right leg. Yet it appears to be missing in the scene of him pouring the plaster. Is it simply outside the field-of-view? Is that possible? Does it change the calculated distance or angle of the camera?

Here is the rock or whatever it is...









Now where is that thing in the plaster pour scene?...

[BigfootBookman]

River,
You cannot prove that ALL BF evidence was of "human or other animal sources" any more than BF advocates can prove that a randomly found footprint was made of necessity by a Sasquatch, or a hair coming back with a DNA analysis as "unknown primate" is in fact from a Bigfoot. And this: how many suspected hoaxes have been *proven* to be hoaxes? Most of the evidence against the PGF, it seems to me, is circumstantial, anecdotal, or speculative.

However, there are reports of sightings that had tracks associated, though you of course would not believe them.

Validation? If you ask Jeff Meldrum and Jimmy Chilcutt, there is plenty. I would not expect that you would believe them, and you are entitled to disagree.

I would say that the PGF is a classic great piece of evidence. To me it looks real, though I am all too aware that others think it was faked. However, in that film you have a real-looking creature that left real-looking tracks. It's pretty darn good, but that is just my opinion.

Frankly, re. "evidence," I am prone to liking the anecdotal reports. I know these do not hold up to the standards of science as real evidence, but many of them could be used in a court of law. I listen to these stories of encounters, I evaluate the witnesses, and I find many of them very, very convincing.

OK, go ahead, call me a dupe, a fool, gullible, pathetic, whatever... It's OK. All I can say is that it is harder to disbelieve in Bigfoot out here in "Bigfoot Country" than it is to simply believe what people are telling me all of the time. These are otherwise honest, sincere, serious, intelligent, capable people, folks used to living in the woods and mountains surrounded by wildlife. Why should I doubt them when they tell me of an upright giant primate in their backyard eating blackberries?

Best, Steve, BF Books

Originally Posted by River

While that is true, you should also keep in mind that what is alleged to be one of the largest animals in North America remains to be discovered. The only known sources for any supposed "sasquatch evidence" have been either human or other animal sources. We cannot prove that one footprint came from one sasquatch. We can however prove multiple examples of humans faking this evidence, and or fabricating stories of bigfoot related scenarios.

How many bigfoot claims have been validated? How many hoaxes have been discovered? This of course is not implying that because we know the source of some alleged sasquatch evidence, that all of it is of the same source. The fact is, none of is has been proven to come from a sasquatch as the source.

Which evidence do you think is the best currently for sasquatches existence, and why?

[mangler]

The creek basin images were modeled using an SRTM1 image obtained during a Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, they're 30 m - 1 arc-sec., IOW, very low end. I threw some trees in and rendered these two frames. The camera is facing 256 degrees the altitude and azimuth for the sun are set for 10/20/67, 16:00 (Altitude: 23.17 degrees, Azimuth: 229.94 degrees), 17:00 ( Altitude: 13.88 degrees, Azimuth: 242.05 degrees).

m




The pour scene image was pretty much eyeballed, the distance between the two tracks was determined using the munns stitched image as a template ( I have serious doubts that the trackway belongs with the pour scene ). The suns elevation was set at 41 degrees, 24 degrees and 14 degrees. Par usual, this isn't science, it's common sense. There are certain shadows that need to lay at specific angles, shadows that lay on the substrate will undoubtedly have a larger margin of error, but the shadow that lay on the subject are pretty tight, obviously the clothing is not hanging right. IMO there is no way that the suns altitude was less than 37 degrees.







Chew on this for awhile G.

Camera height 42”
Camera pitch -16.4 degrees
Camera distance from subject 7'4”
Subject height at shoulders 26.3”
Lens 25mm


m

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow ! Just Wow !

Doing this and not getting paid is admirable...

__________________________________________

Óðinn ?

[mangler]

Come to think of it, I have issues with this trackway even being from the subject film (PGF).

This model matches-up fairly well with the film subject, 36 inches from heel to toe. So why is the trackway below only 20 inches give or take, from heel to toe??? When was it doing the two-step???

Anyone????


m

[parnassus]

Mangler: This comports well with my impressions. It looks as if your camera height is a little over 3 feet. One thing: Patterson's hat rim was rolled up on the sides, which would allow more sun on the side of his face.

[BigfootBookman]

My source was probably Christopher Murphy, too ("Meet the Sasquatch"); though I seem to recall that Greg Long's book has a lot of good history on the use of the film for road tours and documentaries, with indications of where the originals, copies and rights went. Dimitri Bayanov's "America's Bigfoot" book also contains interesting coverage of the original events after the filming, as does Wasson's "Sasquatch Apparitions." Another source is the BIGFOOT TIMES and Daniel Perez. I just don't have time to dig down and find the other possible sources for at this moment. I will try, but give me time to do so.

Steve, BF Books

Originally Posted by River

What is your source for this? I was told a while back by Chris Murphy that the film was loaned to the BBC and never returned. The BBC apparently had denied having it. There should be some documentation of that film being loaned there if that is the case. Any documentation? Source?

[LTC8K6]

WP, the rock is behind the plaster bucket?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

WP, the rock is behind the plaster bucket?

I'm not so sure that it could be. That would place the rock between his legs. Look at this frame. You can just see a bit of the rock in the lower left corner. Is his right knee making the impression at the left arrow here?




But that doesn't seem to be where his right knee is when we see the pouring. Here it looks like his right knee is almost lined up with the toes of the cast.



Look where that rock is in relation to the track he is casting. Can he really hide that with the plaster jug?

[LTC8K6]

If it's the same unaltered scene, then the rock must be behind the bucket/ between R's legs.

If the rock is not there, then the can of worms has been opened.

EDIT: or there is far more compression and distortion in the film/stills than we have accounted for.

[River]

Rocks can be moved.

[William Parcher]

Watch the clip of him putting the plaster. The instant it starts he slightly lifts the jug and you see under it. It can't be hiding that stuff. It isn't even in the same location as the jug.

[River]

Originally Posted by BigfootBookman

River,
You cannot prove that ALL BF evidence was of "human or other animal sources" any more than BF advocates can prove that a randomly found footprint was made of necessity by a Sasquatch

I specifically stated that doesnt explain "all evidence". What I did state was that the only explainations we can prove as a source for alleged "sasquatch evidence" is either misidentification of other animals, or fabricated by men. We can prove multiple instances of this. Why would you assume any footprint is made by a sasquatch when the source cannot be proven? Surely such a large animal would leave some type of verifiable evidence. Is bigfoot a ghost? (sarcastic question! lol) I didn't mean to open a "can of worms" here. Just trying to keep it real. Until one print is proven to be from a saquatch source, I prefer to call it unknown source or identified accordingly.

Quote:

or a hair coming back with a DNA analysis as "unknown primate" is in fact from a Bigfoot. And this: how many suspected hoaxes have been *proven* to be hoaxes? Most of the evidence against the PGF, it seems to me, is circumstantial, anecdotal, or speculative.

I'm open to seeing or examining any evidence that shows the existence of sasquatch. Which evidence specifically do you feel is the best? (specific examples)

Quote:

However, there are reports of sightings that had tracks associated, though you of course would not believe them.

Validation? If you ask Jeff Meldrum and Jimmy Chilcutt, there is plenty. I would not expect that you would believe them, and you are entitled to disagree.

While I agree with you in that, I do not accept "their word" as validation on the subject. I do take into consideration what they have to say and present. So far I've yet to see anything substantiative enough to prove the existence. (i think those gentlemen might agree with me on that)

Quote:

I would say that the PGF is a classic great piece of evidence. To me it looks real, though I am all too aware that others think it was faked. However, in that film you have a real-looking creature that left real-looking tracks. It's pretty darn good, but that is just my opinion.

I agree with you in that I think the PGF was one of the best pieces of pie offered for sasquatch evidence. I do think it represents a fine hoax rather than an uncatagloged species though. I don't agree that the tracks were real looking. IMHO they look faked.

Quote:

Frankly, re. "evidence," I am prone to liking the anecdotal reports. I know these do not hold up to the standards of science as real evidence, but many of them could be used in a court of law. I listen to these stories of encounters, I evaluate the witnesses, and I find many of them very, very convincing.

Which ones would you use in a court of law to prove the existence, or bolster the case? I'm curious which accountings you feel are more credible and why.

Quote:

OK, go ahead, call me a dupe, a fool, gullible, pathetic, whatever... It's OK. All I can say is that it is harder to disbelieve in Bigfoot out here in "Bigfoot Country" than it is to simply believe what people are telling me all of the time. These are otherwise honest, sincere, serious, intelligent, capable people, folks used to living in the woods and mountains surrounded by wildlife. Why should I doubt them when they tell me of an upright giant primate in their backyard eating blackberries?

Best, Steve, BF Books

Steve: I won't be calling you any names! I've appreciated your participation here and the information/opinions you've offered. We don't have to agree to talk about a subject.

I would love to see some real verifiable evidence come out to prove the existence. How cool would that be? I just don't expect it.

Thanks for posting your thoughtful replies. I appreciate getting your opinion on those things.

[River]

Originally Posted by BigfootBookman

My source was probably Christopher Murphy, too ("Meet the Sasquatch"); though I seem to recall that Greg Long's book has a lot of good history on the use of the film for road tours and documentaries, with indications of where the originals, copies and rights went. Dimitri Bayanov's "America's Bigfoot" book also contains interesting coverage of the original events after the filming, as does Wasson's "Sasquatch Apparitions." Another source is the BIGFOOT TIMES and Daniel Perez. I just don't have time to dig down and find the other possible sources for at this moment. I will try, but give me time to do so.

Steve, BF Books

I've emailed back n forth and spoken with Chris on the phone a few times about the PGF. I've found him to be very approachable and a kind gentleman. My initial contact with him was in regards to the "second reel" footage and trying to see what he knew about it.

I think it is speculation as to what happened with that footage. I would love to see that resolved one day with the right information but I'm not holding my breath for it. I do think an attainable goal is to find the footage from Fabulous Animals - Man or Beast. Maybe someone will come up with a source for that. I think it will be difficult to find though.

If you do find more of the second reel footage than I linked previously, please update us here with a link or news of it. Thanks.

[LTC8K6]

Oh yeah, I don't really think the rock is there, I'm just setting up the box...

Larger windows media version of the clip:

http://www.mediafire.com/?t06dv1va7r685zw

Larger windows media version of the black and white trackway clip:

http://www.mediafire.com/?fs8xhnsele85s6l

[BigfootBookman]

OK, I still have not found my original source for this issue of the second reel and the BBC, but I did find the following in Christopher Murphy's BIGFOOT FILM JOURNAL, 2008. I highly recommend this book, though it has been very hard to obtain until recently, Hancock House has finally issued a trade edition. Since I will quote fairly extensively here from the book it is only fair that I say: Go Buy It. Here is a link:
http://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Film-J...reative=392969

From pp. 46-47, (START QUOTE)
"The second film roll does not appear to have been duplicated in its entirety and is, unfortunately, missing. I believe the screening of this roll at the University of British Columbia on October 26, 1967 was the first and last major screening. At some point in time, Patterson gave Rene Dahinden about 10 feet of film from this second roll. Rene had five frames made into still photographs, two of which showed Patterson holding footprint casts at the film site.

Then in 1996 a short film segment consisting of sixty frames showing four of the creature's footprints in a series appeared on the Internet. I do not know the source. I believe these same shots were used in a 1975 BBC television documentary series entitiled Fabulous Animals. This series, featuring the noted naturalist Sir David Attenborough, included a segment on bigfoot.

Mrs. Patterson has told me that the film was loaned to the BBC at or about that time and was not returned. The Fabulous Animals series was never made available commercially, so I am unable to determine exactly what film frames were used. It is certainly possible this was somehow the source of the frames that appeared on the Internet.

Furthermore, a BBC bigfoot television documentary, The World's Greatest Hoaxes, released in 1998, shows shots from the second roll (Patterson making a cast at the film site). I am positive Dahinden did not provide his 10-foot strip to the BBC. Requests to the BBC to look for the film roll did not receive a response.

Nevertheless, as they say, "wonders never cease." Upon visiting John Green in 2002, he showed me a video of the Patterson/Gimlin film along with the other material on the same tape. Surprisingly, one of the still images Dahinden had made (one of two showing Patterson holding casts) came up. John could not recall how he obtained this image. For certain, Dahinden had not given it to him.

When I again visited John Green in May 2003 with Vancouver Museum people, John showed us the actual 16mm Patterson film of the creature. After the film was finished, John inadvertantly let the entire film roll expire (i.e., go right to the end of the roll). All of a sudden, the footage of the creature's tracks in a series appeared. John was as surprised as I was. He did not know the footage was there. Whenever he views the film, he shuts off the projector at the end of the main footage (i.e., end of film). He has no idea how the additional footage got on the roll. Somewhere down the line, it appears Al DeAtley or someone spliced the footage of the creature's prints in a series. There are a number of people who have a copy of the film, so perhaps their copy also has the additional footage, and that could also be how it found its way to the Internet.

At one point, prior to Patterson's death, Gimlin inquired of him as to the location of the second roll. Patterson informed Gimlin that Al DeAtley had it 'somewhere.' Gimlin followed up with DeAtley, but he denied both having the film and that it ever existed. Evidently, DeAtley forgot that he probably had the film developed.

While working with Yvon Leclerc on my bookMeet the Sasquatch (Hancock House, 2004), Yvon assembled (registered) the sixty frames from the Internet into a single image. I recently (March 2005) discovered that the last footprint in the series shown matches the shot of a single footprint from the 10-foot strip. This was not previously noticed because the print is mirror-imaged (film lab error). This discovery leads me to believe that the 10-foot strip also contains all of the other footprints. Furthermore, the total number of 16mm frames on 10 feet of film would be about 360 frames (about 23 seconds of viewing), so there are likely other important frames on this strip." (END QUOTE)

Well, I hope that helps. Get the book for more!

He follows talking about the original film reel. He says, "The last word on the original fim is that it was loaned to American National Enterprises, and later got caught up in a mass of litigation, brought ab out for the most part by Rene Dahinden.... It subsequently ended up at a law firm in Florida. I believe the film could be recovered. It is just a matter of time, money, and dealing with some legal entanglements that go beyond the scope of this discussion."

Fascinating. Daniel Perez has said that the original film was in the Los Angeles area at one point, where it was used to produce high-resolution frames in Cibachrome. I still need to dig to find that source, though it is in the Bigfoot Times so far as I know.

It is amazing that no one apparently thought to duplicate the second reel. This is a part of the general problem in trying to reconstruct or unearth the history and context of the PGF. People were so fixated on proving that the creature in the film was real (or not), that they did not take care to preserve all aspects of the surrounding documentation, the film, the site, etc. It would appear that Patterson himself cut up the original, perhaps thinking either that it didn't matter anymore, or that someone must have copied it. Then, it would seem, Patricia Patterson loaned it out to the BBC, apparently thinking the same thing, or not knowing that this was the original second reel film.

It is really rather vague in my mind, but I recall a bigfoot documentary when I was a kid that had this second reel footage in it. Not only I, but a couple of other guys I know also seem to recall seeing this documentary. Two of us have a vague recollection of seeing Gimlin jumping off a stump or log to test his boot's depth in the sand. Could this really have been preserved? The time would have been around 1975, and it could very well have been this BBC Fabulous Animals thing.

There you go. Best, Steve, BF Books

Originally Posted by BigfootBookman

My source was probably Christopher Murphy, too ("Meet the Sasquatch"); though I seem to recall that Greg Long's book has a lot of good history on the use of the film for road tours and documentaries, with indications of where the originals, copies and rights went. Dimitri Bayanov's "America's Bigfoot" book also contains interesting coverage of the original events after the filming, as does Wasson's "Sasquatch Apparitions." Another source is the BIGFOOT TIMES and Daniel Perez. I just don't have time to dig down and find the other possible sources for at this moment. I will try, but give me time to do so.

Steve, BF Books

[BigfootBookman]

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/bigfilpod.htm

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I'm not so sure that it could be. That would place the rock between his legs. Look at this frame. You can just see a bit of the rock in the lower left corner. Is his right knee making the impression at the left arrow here?


But that doesn't seem to be where his right knee is when we see the pouring. Here it looks like his right knee is almost lined up with the toes of the cast.


Look where that rock is in relation to the track he is casting. Can he really hide that with the plaster jug?

I don't think those 2 tracks are the same footprint, William.

Here is a crop from the 'LeClerc reconstructed trackway' image...showing the next footprint of Patty's....and it's not visible in the Roger Cast Pour image...





I shortened the length of the trackway image by 50%, to simulate the foreshortening of the track, in the Pour image. And that next footprint shows-up pretty close to where the measurements I made said it should be...






Between the 'missing footprint'...the missing rock, and Roger's clean-shaven face....it seems to me that this image would most likely be the Cast Pour simulation, that Roger did, 2 or 3 days before they filmed Patty.

[William Parcher]

That long "stump" shadow ought to be visible in the LeClerc stitch but it isn't. The two scenes are revealing themselves to be less and less connected. If Munns can release big hi-res scans of these scenes we can even look for matching pebbles and twigs.

[BigfootBookman]

Parnassus,
I'm assuming you made this map, and that your creek road in blue is just an estimation, correct? We found that the remnants of the road clearly indicated that the "road" actually forded the creek in many areas. During the summer this would not be a problem, as the creek is normally very shallow. Your spots look good. I would give credit to Barbara Wasson's book for the location (we think!) of the PGF base camp, though what you show is indeed about 2.5 miles from the film site.

From everything we've been able to piece together: there was a ford where the Bluff Creek Bridge is now. It went across the creek from the south, 1 mile up from Louse Camp, and entered the creek road. It is unknown to me as yet if 12N13 existed in 1967. The G-O Road to the north was nothing more than a cat trail, not a road at all, really, until quite a bit later.

There was no main way in to the Bluff Creek basin that I have ever heard of being there in 1967 save for the road(s) in from the south. Up the ridge, or on this "creek road." Up the ridge on what is now called Bluff Creek Road at the lower end of the creek, along Hwy 96, one comes to Onion Mountain, and then heads down to Louse Camp. This is the road that Jerry Crew and Ray Wallace's crew built. Construction was in progress on the Blue Creek Mountain extension in summer, 1967. Patterson and Gimlin left on the ridge road, due to flooding (source, Barbara Wasson), but we may assume that they could have come UP on the creek road to get in there. The post-1964 flood creekbed salvage logging should have left a fairly passable track through the creek for them in 1967.

We are still trying to get all of the pieces to this puzzle. I am going to try to interview my neighbor, Jay Rowland, again, and ask more detailed questions. The last talk we had about Bluff Creek took a couple of hours on the dirt road down from my cabin, where I found him out cutting blackberry bushes. I was very late to work that day. ANY QUESTIONS RE. BLUFF CREEK ALL OF YOU WOULD HAVE ME ASK HIM? He worked construction up there for decades, living part of the year at Louse Camp.

I would like to note here that many of the images posted above by others depicting the film site are NOT the area we find to be the most likely candidate. Those Morehead coordinates put the "site" right at the bottom of the road at the bat boxes. These correspond with what Peter Byrne told me this summer. We were on-site and found this spot to be wholly implausible and out of correspondence with the descriptions of the site from way back when. Go upstream to the big bend/gulch you can see in my maps. That is the general Perez location (from Dahinden). Or go downstream 500 yards from the bat boxes to the "MK Davis site." New information coming in from a prominent researcher you all would know (anonymous, however, and also citing Dahinden as a source) declares the site is 2 miles up from Louse Camp, which (urgh!) would put it a full 1.5 miles downstream from where we are currently in general consensus in locating the film site area.

Best,
Steve, BF Books

Originally Posted by parnassus

thanks for the link, BFBM.

If anyone else was as confused as me, they might find this diagram/map helpful.
http://i51.tinypic.com/2j5ncrk.jpg
corrections will be appreciated; rude remarks, not so much.

I have a question about where/how P and G got onto the little creek road. Was it at Louse Creek, or the Bluff Creek Bridge?

Another question: which way did P and G get into this general area from 96 or what highway? which route/roads?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

That long "stump" shadow ought to be visible in the LeClerc stitch but it isn't. The two scenes are revealing themselves to be less and less connected. If Munns can release big hi-res scans of these scenes we can even look for matching pebbles and twigs.

The long shadow is a horse's head...

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The long shadow is a horse's head...

It's not really a horse...

[LTC8K6]

I bet a donut, that they are the same track. In the movie, I even see the same transition to wet soil just before the cast track. I see the same buildup of soil around the track. I believe time has gone by between the scenes. I think this cast has been set back in the print.

[LTC8K6]

The track on the left has the famous Wallace toes, imo. Identical. Can't see the rest of it too well, but I'd bet that one is an alderfoot.

Same for the Hodgson track photos below.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think this cast has been set back in the print.

FWIW, Heironimus said that Roger used casts to create fake Bigfoot tracks. He said Roger was about to do that just after Bob was to leave Bluff Creek (after acting as Patty). The implication was that Roger already had casts in his possession which he would use to make fake tracks in the sand.

He may have dug out an area roughly the size and shape of the cast. Then lay the cast in there and press down firmly. Pull it out and it looks like a deep track. Roger seemed to like flat tracks that looked like stampings. His personal collection (including the 2 from Patty) all look to be flat stamps. It was other people that took a fancy to casts that had uneven bottoms (such as the so called mid-tarsal break).

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The track on the left has the famous Wallace toes, imo. Identical. Can't see the rest of it too well, but I'd bet that one is an alderfoot.

Same for the Hodgson track photos below.

The angle of that one reminded me of the 1930 Mt. St. Helens Bigfoot track which is attributed to being a Mullens carved foot. Upside-down bowling pins.

It's been an interesting evening here.

[LTC8K6]

The more I watch that clip of Roger making the cast, the more I think I may lose my own bet!

I am looking at how much material is mounded up around the track. It now looks to me like there isn't anywhere near as much material around the "pour" track vs the "trackway" track...

I need a nap...

[BigfootBookman]

Parcher, knock off the silly "drama queen" crap already. Trollish words those, my friend. I don't know why I even responded to you in the first place. I'm only trying to offer my information and ideas on these things to the world. For what it is worth. From the start with your "Swastika Steve" stuff you've been nothing but a bother to me. So, goodbye. I'm trying to offer something to JREF Forum, but maybe I should put all of this on my blog, where it belongs? Yeah, that is what I will do.

Just this: if you are going to use Titmus' drawing to prove something then you should note that the Krantz diagram along with it places the first frame of the film under the "G" in your "log jam," 112 feet back and to the RIGHT, or quite a distance AWAY from the root ball or log jam, and heading in the exact OPPOSITE direction from the one that would allow your glance back at the sighting spot. The retreat is away from it to the right in the Titmus drawing. Line the two up, and consider again. Yes, I do understand camera perspective enough (I hope)--but that does not account for the camera being pointed in the WRONG DIRECTION, does it? That would have to be one HUGE field of view. And also, in no description of the film site, nor in any photograph of the film site, I have heard of or seen, does the creek jut up in the way it would have to in order to replicate the version of it we see in your theory about the first second of the film. The flow of the creek is always described as a big bend around a gravel bar. This can be clearly seen in the Dahinden photo from above the site. Perhaps you are right, but perhaps, too, you are wrong? We just don't have all the information we need to know that for sure.

Besides, I've already said to you that the pool or seep concept was just a theory. An alternative. One based on the fact that there ARE such pools and seeps on the site today. You cannot let it rest. I was not in control of the editing of that video, and many things were said, including the possibility that that was the creek and not a pool. It really seems to me that there is not enough specificity in the Titmus drawing, and not enough seen in those first few split seconds of the PGF, to really tell anything for sure. You can say it was "proven" here on the JREF, but hey, that is news to me. No reason for you to go getting all smug about it. It is attitudes like that which drive people away from the JREF. Jeez, perhaps I'll just stop wasting my time here. Is that what you want? I don't want to argue about this stuff in a nasty way. That is counter-productive. We are all just theorizing here, really. I've spent many an hour in this last week or two typing out stuff for you JREFs. Give me a break already. Even Parnassus and I are getting along here.

And I don't know why you cite those images done by Rugg and also Steindorf/Hajicek. Wouldn't you normally scoff at just about anything else that they did or said? Those are illustrations done well after the fact, and with too scant contextual evidence for them to really represent the way things were back then. They are "dramatic recreations," dramatizations. However, there are many features of that creek, geological ones, that have NOT changed over the years. We found many of them. One of these is the logjam situation at the film site. Yes, it is still there, though I am sure it changes somewhat every winter. There are still large root balls piled up there, right where (I think) Gimlin described them as being. Log jam, then root balls, then the sighting... that is what we see on the ground today, with the gravel bar curved just right in front corresponding with the hard rock face opposing the opposite bank. Some nice, old firs that look just about right are in the background at the right distance.

What we have is a lot of stories, a few fleeting images, a larger film site that was not fully documented, the memory of which has not even been undeniably retained over the years. What my associates and I are trying to do is reconstruct all of this disparate and often minimal or fragmentary or contradictory evidence and documentation. We are trying to find how it all fits together on the ground, NOT sitting behind some computer keyboard, NOT on Google Earth. It can be confusing at times. We are in fact intentionally exposing ourselves to this "confusion." We would do so to entertain all of the possibilities, not to appear to always be right. Obviously, that is YOUR compulsion. We are not professional film analysts, geologists, zoologists, botanists, nor forestry historians; and we don't claim to be. We are only amateur enthusiasts trying to account for a situation that sadly has not been properly documented for posterity. I don't need to be right in every thing we are considering. We only want to find the truth. And it ain't easy, brother, to do so in this case.

S. BF Books

Originally Posted by William Parcher

No, because it is the flowing creek. It flows past and seemingly under the fallen-tree-with-root-mass (logjam) that initially concealed Patty. P&G spoke of that and Titmus illustrated it on his map. Those are ripples in the shallow water. In the first few moments of the PGF we see that Roger filmed the exact spot where Patty stood and the moment they saw her. The only way for that specific logjam to have concealed her was for her to be in a specific spot. That spot is alongside the debris (right side) and next to the water. Gimlin said in a lecture 3 years ago that she was 18" from the water at the moment they first saw her.

Look...
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/fb4f5012.jpg

Titmus' map functions pretty well for this section of the creek.

Don't trust the creek appearance and exact location within the canyon now. That can change significantly in 43 years.

No, he is moving towards it. He is running directly at and slightly to the right of the logjam that concealed Patty. That pile of wood was her cover as she stood next to the creek.

You are confused. Understand the field-of-view of the camera and the location indicated (on Titmus/Krantz map) for the start of filming. The logjam that concealed Patty as well as the water running under it are shown in the first few frames.

Blah blah blah. You are acting like a crybaby drama queen. We have worked on this exact issue here at JREF for years now. It was all laid out already and I am going over it again for you. There is no seep or puddle. On film we see the famous logjam that hid Patty and the creek water flowing underneath it.

That moment of first sighting was illustrated in two graphics by Rugg and also Steindorf/Hajicek...

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/e7c0eae6.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/53b6952f.gif

[William Parcher]

I think you should give your donut to charity. This one seems to have a fork in it now. The burden of proof is upon anyone claiming the two tracks are the same.

[BigfootBookman]

ha ha!

(Click to Enlarge, you won't regret it.)

The Massacre, clearly explained.

[William Parcher]

Here is a stabilization which shows Patty walking away from the big fallen tree and collected debris in the creek which she was hidden behind...

[BigfootBookman]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here is a stabilization which shows Patty walking away from the big fallen tree and collected debris in the creek which she was hidden behind...
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/3ee2e3fa.gif

I don't want to belabor this issue, as I've already declared an agnostic and experimental, theory-stage attitude. However, consider this isolated frame, below, showing what looks to my eyes like a lower BORDER to the supposedly flowing creek.

S.

[BigfootBookman]

This is the only spot where the creek-in-the-first-frames theory might work along with the Titmus drawing. If Cliff Barackman is correct (after Gimlin, 2003, as related by Bobo), then the first frames could very well be of the tip of that bump in the creek at the left edge of the red dot. It's plausible. These contours on the creek match over many years of government topo maps, and correspond well to the site as it is today on the ground.

S., who is moving on, if he can....

[LTC8K6]

Frankly, I'm stunned that anyone would think that is not the flowing creek...

[BigfootBookman]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Frankly, I'm stunned that anyone would think that is not the flowing creek...

All I am saying is that it looks quite odd to me; and I am offering a potential alternative explanation. The fact is that these creekside pools and seeps do exist. In the low-res clip above I don't see ripples, I see blurred rocks.
Look at my image above: what is that gravel doing at the bottom?
S

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by BigfootBookman

All I am saying is that it looks quite odd to me; and I am offering a potential alternative explanation. The fact is that these creekside pools and seeps do exist. In the low-res clip above I don't see ripples, I see blurred rocks.
Look at my image above: what is that gravel doing at the bottom?
S

There are banks, logs, stumps, rocks, piles of debris, and piles of soil that will obscure the view of the creek, especially given Roger's height. The camera is only a little over 4 feet off the ground.

You'll note that I think the creek flows off to the right, even though I cannot see it there.

It think what's obscuring the creek in your frame is a tree trunk.