The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty - Part III

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Resume

http://www.native-languages.org/monsters.htm

So all these must be real.

Keep an eye out for those thunderbirds and river panthers, too! There are native legends about them, so by footer logic they must have basis in tangible, biological reality.

Extending this concept to the rest of human culture, be sure to beware of minotaurs, leprechauns, pegasi and unicorns. All real, because otherwise there would be no stories about them!

[dmaker]

Originally Posted by DennyT

I must say, visiting the restaurants and other establishments in Willow Creek is actually close to zero fun. I mean, I like to eat, get to know people, but that's not a fun place to do it. Aside from the surrounding mountains and Bigfootbookman, it's a fairly dreadful place (pro tip: stay away from the Bigfoot Motel). Unlike BFBM, I have no interest in hearing fish (or "fish-man") stories (pardon my disdain) from seemingly normal, truthful people...I can read them on Bigfoot Evidence every day.
The film site itself is fun in much the same way that visiting, say, an historic battlefield is fun. I am a history buff. The PGF has to be considered an historic event, or at least an historic hoax. And I must say, for me, there are still a few interesting things to learn there. Not everyone has that kind of curiosity. Very few, apparently. BFBM may correct me, but not many skeptics go there.

I am sure you are correct. I am a bit of a sucker for small amounts of bigfoot kitch. I have a pair of bigfoot socks, tee shirt, bookmarks, that sort of thing. I imagined that Willow Creek would be a good source for kitch.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by DennyT

. Very few, apparently. BFBM may correct me, but not many skeptics go there.

Why would they? It isn't any more significant than any other site associated with false reports of wild ape men. Those places are only of interest to believers and conmen.

[bigfootbookman]

Yes, 2003 was the year Meldrum went there. He was with Murphy and Perez in trying to figure out the right location. They determined it was in the lower big gulch, just around the bend from the upper true film site sandbar. Below their point is the narrow bottleneck where a big log jam blocked flow, causing the pileup of sand heading upstream. Where they were in the gulch much of that original sandbar was washed away, such that the consensus was that the site was mostly gone. There is a small tributary creeklet that flows in at that point, often depositing its own sediment and altering the main creekbed and flow below it. Meldrum likely got his sample from the parts of the lower sandbar there that hasn't been washed away. The sand there is very similar to the upper sandbar, but it's been washed over in many areas by subsequent flooding. The upper sandbar we proved was the film site has a higher level and has not been washed over by subsequent smaller flooding in years after 1964. If one digs a hand into the sandbar just a little way one can pull up handfuls of this incredibly fine dark grey sand. When dry it is almost a powder. This can be found all down the creek where the old flood deposits are intact. Its mostly the common dark schist that is a common rock up there, with some serpentine and other stuff mixed in it. I would say the content of the Meldrum sample would likely be very similar to what we have from the upper bar just a football field upstream as a bird would fly it. I can get a more technical view from our geologist associate, if it's needed.

BFBM

Originally Posted by DennyT

Meldrum says his substrate sample was obtained in 2003. I assume that this was on the great outing following the the Willow Creek Symposium. At that time the actual location was not known, and most people thought it was a hundred yards south of the actual spot ( though at some point Gimlin indicated that he thought he recognized the actual site; it doesn't seem that his comment was paid any attention). I'm gonna say the odds are that the Meldrum specimen did not come from the right place.

[bigfootbookman]

Re. my statement that our measurements were more accurate than some of Green and Dahinden...

It's pretty simple, really. On-site we found many of the trees and stumps that were used as landmarks by Green and Dahinden. Some are gone... the dead alder trees, killed by the 1964 flood apparently, fell over and rotted away. Others are still there, and aren't moving around, namely the older trees and old growth stumps and old log piles. We took measurements of all of the significant objects very carefully. In this process we found that there were small discrepancies of distance between what the old measurement charts said and what we could see with our own eyes with a long measuring tape.

Also, the next year there with Munns he marked the camera locations for several of the old photos, based on his assessment of them compared to the film itself. Green, Byrne and Dahinden all were slightly off position (in varying degrees) from where he determined Patterson was actually standing for Frame 352.

BFBM

Originally Posted by DennyT

BFBM:
can you track us through your evidence for this in post #49:

[bigfootbookman]

Much of the skeptical response to the PGF has to do with various aspects of the backstory and context of these stories, and thus with the actual setting of the film and its surroundings where the claimed events occurred. The site itself can be useful in analyzing the film itself. Even if one is convinced that the film is a hoax and the stories are lies, one can find substance in the setting for such debunking analyses, just as a proponent for the film can. Arguments for our against the backstory can be substantiated with aspects of the setting found all over the place around here. Such as, the Bald Hills route story, and how that affects (or not) the plausibility of the PGF timeline. As a debate persists over these things, those engaged in it, whether they be Kitakaze or Munns, can benefit from such information. I always try to encourage those from the skeptical side to join us at Bluff Creek sometime. It's not like we are rabid believers who will try to convert you to a position on the issues. One study I'm really interested in doing is to take the Greg Long book and the Roger Knights essays on the Heironimus geography and to compare these to the actual locations. Not to argue that the film is real due to this, but I find the Heironimus account of his travels sorely deficient and inaccurate.

BFBM

Originally Posted by Shiner

Why would they? It isn't any more significant than any other site associated with false reports of wild ape men. Those places are only of interest to believers and conmen.

[LTC8K6]

I would be 10X more interested in looking for and finding the missing film from that day. The film site holds little interest.

The casting footage.
The stump jump.
The trackway footage.
The original PGF film roll.

Any footage from the 3.5 miles out and back following Patty. It seems hard to believe they rode 7 miles and didn't film some of the chase.

Of course this is all silly, and we're never going to see any of that.

[LTC8K6]

There seems to be no effort or money going towards finding the missing film rolls from that day. That seems odd to me, since if they exist, they could certainly reinforce the PGF.

Imagine finding the roll with Gimlin's stump jump track depth test.

Again though, the idea is silly. No one is looking because these films never existed. Gimlin most likely never jumped off a stump at the PGF site. That story was invented simply to reinforce the hoax.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by bigfootbookman

...Also, the next year there with Munns he marked the camera locations for several of the old photos, based on his assessment of them compared to the film itself. Green, Byrne and Dahinden all were slightly off position (in varying degrees) from where he determined Patterson was actually standing for Frame 352.

BFBM

You need to keep reminding yourself that Munns has an agenda and little skill in photogrammetry.
Of course his camera positioning 60years after those of Green et al.
He has to reposition the camera in order to support his lens length "calculations" in order to prove his 8ft bf assertions.

You really give Munns way too much credibility considering his vested interests and lack of expertise.

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Originally Posted by EHocking

You need to keep reminding yourself that Munns has an agenda and little skill in photogrammetry.
Of course his camera positioning 60years after those of Green et al.
He has to reposition the camera in order to support his lens length "calculations" in order to prove his 8ft bf assertions.

You really give Munns way too much credibility considering his vested interests and lack of expertise.

The most obvious thing about Munns and his involvement in all of this is the fact that he's after a bit of cash. No more. No less.

The man was practically begging people to fund him and his little escapades.

I'd take anything he said with a handful of sea salt and then wash it down with a shot of soy sauce.

[DennyT]

Originally Posted by bigfootbookman

Re. my statement that our measurements were more accurate than some of Green and Dahinden...

It's pretty simple, really. On-site we found many of the trees and stumps that were used as landmarks by Green and Dahinden. Some are gone... the dead alder trees, killed by the 1964 flood apparently, fell over and rotted away. Others are still there, and aren't moving around, namely the older trees and old growth stumps and old log piles. We took measurements of all of the significant objects very carefully. In this process we found that there were small discrepancies of distance between what the old measurement charts said and what we could see with our own eyes with a long measuring tape.

Also, the next year there with Munns he marked the camera locations for several of the old photos, based on his assessment of them compared to the film itself. Green, Byrne and Dahinden all were slightly off position (in varying degrees) from where he determined Patterson was actually standing for Frame 352.

BFBM

BFBM
Which measurements are you referring to, on Green's and Dahinden's diagrams?

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by bigfootbookman

Much of the skeptical response to the PGF has to do with various aspects of the backstory and context of these stories, and thus with the actual setting of the film and its surroundings where the claimed events occurred. The site itself can be useful in analyzing the film itself. Even if one is convinced that the film is a hoax and the stories are lies, one can find substance in the setting for such debunking analyses, just as a proponent for the film can. Arguments for our against the backstory can be substantiated with aspects of the setting found all over the place around here. Such as, the Bald Hills route story, and how that affects (or not) the plausibility of the PGF timeline. As a debate persists over these things, those engaged in it, whether they be Kitakaze or Munns, can benefit from such information. I always try to encourage those from the skeptical side to join us at Bluff Creek sometime. It's not like we are rabid believers who will try to convert you to a position on the issues. One study I'm really interested in doing is to take the Greg Long book and the Roger Knights essays on the Heironimus geography and to compare these to the actual locations. Not to argue that the film is real due to this, but I find the Heironimus account of his travels sorely deficient and inaccurate.

BFBM

No worries. Thanks for the detailed reply.

I don't see any answers to my question though. Why would skeptics frequent the place?

I can see how you'd like more tourists in your locality. I'm having trouble seeing your project as anything more than an effort to generate income. Whether it be your group, or your town. Most people who go to your efforts to promote bigfoot are in it for the dollars.

You are, regardless of your fence sitting position purveyed here, promoting the bigfoot myth.

[DennyT]

Originally Posted by bigfootbookman

Yes, 2003 was the year Meldrum went there. He was with Murphy and Perez in trying to figure out the right location. They determined it was in the lower big gulch, just around the bend from the upper true film site sandbar. Below their point is the narrow bottleneck where a big log jam blocked flow, causing the pileup of sand heading upstream. Where they were in the gulch much of that original sandbar was washed away, such that the consensus was that the site was mostly gone. There is a small tributary creeklet that flows in at that point, often depositing its own sediment and altering the main creekbed and flow below it. Meldrum likely got his sample from the parts of the lower sandbar there that hasn't been washed away. The sand there is very similar to the upper sandbar, but it's been washed over in many areas by subsequent flooding. The upper sandbar we proved was the film site has a higher level and has not been washed over by subsequent smaller flooding in years after 1964. If one digs a hand into the sandbar just a little way one can pull up handfuls of this incredibly fine dark grey sand. When dry it is almost a powder. This can be found all down the creek where the old flood deposits are intact. Its mostly the common dark schist that is a common rock up there, with some serpentine and other stuff mixed in it. I would say the content of the Meldrum sample would likely be very similar to what we have from the upper bar just a football field upstream as a bird would fly it. I can get a more technical view from our geologist associate, if it's needed.

BFBM

Thanks. It would be interesting in view of those influences.

[DennyT]

Originally Posted by Shiner

No worries. Thanks for the detailed reply.

I don't see any answers to my question though. Why would skeptics frequent the place?

I can see how you'd like more tourists in your locality. I'm having trouble seeing your project as anything more than an effort to generate income. Whether it be your group, or your town. Most people who go to your efforts to promote bigfoot are in it for the dollars.

You are, regardless of your fence sitting position purveyed here, promoting the bigfoot myth.

I don't think that BFBM or his team is in this to promote tourism. And they are not homogeneous believers in the reality of the subject. I think they enjoy the subject, they enjoy having made a discovery, and they welcome others who find it interesting/fun. Most of the people who come are more extreme proponents and some are actual promoters. However, it is difficult to argue that anything of substantial support for the reality of the film has come out, because of what they have done. And, their very extensive game cam project has provided no support for the the reality of bigfoot.
Having said all that, if one wants to debate whether or not a person is a few inches one way way or the other from the middle of "the fence", here is a test I can recommend: I would say that if one does NOT use qualifying expressions like "Patterson claimed" or "Gimlin says", when referring to their unverified stories (and Gimlin cannot be used to verify Patterson), then that person is not really on the fence.

[Cervelo]

Anyone who has made a trip to such a site is going on a pilgrimage.
Nobody's making that trip unless they are a footer or are there to try and understand the delusional nature of the footer mind set.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Cervelo

Anyone who has made a trip to such a site is going on a pilgrimage. Nobody's making that trip unless they are a footer or are there to try and understand the delusional nature of the footer mind set.

I don't need to visit that site to understand this.

Another option here is that these folks are bigfoot entrepreneurs.

[Cervelo]

Originally Posted by Resume

I don't need to visit that site to understand this.

Another option here is that these folks are bigfoot entrepreneurs.

Well....since I've actually called out one of our resident footers and had the full footer experience "live from remote Kentucky", I felt I had to include it as a possibility.
I think the whole footie researcher field is more populated with people seeking acceptance into an exclusive club, where their stories gain them notoriety as a witness to something special or a position of authority/expertise.
Roger Patterson, Matt Moneymaker, Jeff Meldumb and maybe a few others, have truly capitalized on the subject, but only Patterson IMO started out with the intent of footing just for profit. Wanted to shoot a movie about Bigfoot hunting and got lucky with his first roll of film...jackpot....one and done!

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Cervelo

Well....since I've actually called out one of our resident footers and had the full footer experience "live from remote Kentucky", I felt I had to include it as a possibility.
I think the whole footie researcher field is more populated with people seeking acceptance into an exclusive club, where their stories gain them notoriety as a witness to something special or a position of authority/expertise.
Roger Patterson, Matt Moneymaker, Jeff Meldumb and maybe a few others, have truly capitalized on the subject, but only Patterson IMO started out with the intent of footing just for profit. Wanted to shoot a movie about Bigfoot hunting and got lucky with his first roll of film...jackpot....one and done!

There are many others attempting to monetize footie; a failed entrepreneur is still an entrepreneur. Don't forget, our next president (just ask him) filed chapter 11 four times.

I do agree however, that many self-identified "researchers" are attempting to fit in with this weird social club.

[GT/CS]

I certainly know Patty was a bloke in a suit and Bigfoot is a myth but if I lived in the film area I'd go try to find it. It'd be fun. I'd also get measurements because I'm a bit of a geek. For those reasons I am a little baffled at the cynicism directed at BFBM.

Many of you seem to have become jaded and have turned into cynics. Didn't any of you spend your childhood playing in the woods? BFBM may enjoy playing in the woods. He's also helping believers and skeptics by getting the data both sides say they want. Are there other motives for the work he performed? Of course there are but even without those motives I can understand doing it just for fun.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

I certainly know Patty was a bloke in a suit and Bigfoot is a myth but if I lived in the film area I'd go try to find it. It'd be fun. I'd also get measurements because I'm a bit of a geek. For those reasons I am a little baffled at the cynicism directed at BFBM.

Many of you seem to have become jaded and have turned into cynics. Didn't any of you spend your childhood playing in the woods? BFBM may enjoy playing in the woods. He's also helping believers and skeptics by getting the data both sides say they want. Are there other motives for the work he performed? Of course there are but even without those motives I can understand doing it just for fun.

I've been playing in the woods my whole life; it's what, in part, informed my conclusion that the pgf and footie aren't real.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

I certainly know Patty was a bloke in a suit and Bigfoot is a myth but if I lived in the film area I'd go try to find it. It'd be fun. I'd also get measurements because I'm a bit of a geek. For those reasons I am a little baffled at the cynicism directed at BFBM.

Many of you seem to have become jaded and have turned into cynics. Didn't any of you spend your childhood playing in the woods? BFBM may enjoy playing in the woods. He's also helping believers and skeptics by getting the data both sides say they want. Are there other motives for the work he performed? Of course there are but even without those motives I can understand doing it just for fun.

I agree that when I was 15 years old, finding the site of the PGF would have been a fun adventure to me.

It just holds no interest for me as an adult. It's just the site of a hoax, which could have been done almost anywhere there was a decent bit of forest.

I find it ironic to be chastised about interest in the site, given the near total lack of interest in the site at the time the PGF was produced.

It's almost as if we are supposed to do someone else's job for them.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

I certainly know Patty was a bloke in a suit and Bigfoot is a myth but if I lived in the film area I'd go try to find it. It'd be fun. I'd also get measurements because I'm a bit of a geek. For those reasons I am a little baffled at the cynicism directed at BFBM.

Many of you seem to have become jaded and have turned into cynics. Didn't any of you spend your childhood playing in the woods? BFBM may enjoy playing in the woods. He's also helping believers and skeptics by getting the data both sides say they want. Are there other motives for the work he performed? Of course there are but even without those motives I can understand doing it just for fun.

I've been wanting for years to visit the site with Steven. Regardless of the film being a hoax, it's a a great piece of Americana and I'm a complete nerd. That's his hood and he knows it best.

I'd also just like to hang out with Steven and some if his Bluff Creek Project cohorts because they are actually very cool guys and passionate about being in nature which I am as well. I suspect if I did do that, Steven would have Tom Yamarone and a number of others breathing down his neck with the cult routine.

Of course, if they really want to get to the bottom of the whole thing, they simply need to sit down with Gimlin and take off the kiddy gloves that he always gets and ask him some very simply straightforward questions.

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I've been wanting for years to visit the site with Steven. Regardless of the film being a hoax, it's a a great piece of Americana and I'm a complete nerd. That's his hood and he knows it best.

I'd also just like to hang out with Steven and some if his Bluff Creek Project cohorts because they are actually very cool guys and passionate about being in nature which I am as well. I suspect if I did do that, Steven would have Tom Yamarone and a number of others breathing down his neck with the cult routine.

Of course, if they really want to get to the bottom of the whole thing, they simply need to sit down with Gimlin and take off the kiddy gloves that he always gets and ask him some very simply straightforward questions.

I'm with you. And there is a certain sentimental aspect to it no matter one's position. I've said before that I believe the entire basis of modern Bigfoot owes its existence to that film. Roger Patterson (and Gimlin) is the real and true inventor of "Bigfoot" as we know it. So the significance of the Bluff Creek site as a sorta Bigfoot "ground zero" isn't that surprising and hardly condemnable. Surely no more "weird" than traipsing around the 100 Acre Wood looking for Bigfoot at all.

And I also think you're right that if Gimlin were ever put in a more proper, dispassionate environment and asked candid questions and expecting serious answers, the hoax could potentially become clearer. A court of law would be a good place for that although he'll be dead before he ever gets in one of those. Interrogatories and a deposition could also possibly work, but who wants to sue an old man just to make him confess?! As his friend did long before him, he apparently has no problem exiting in "disgrace". If not in full now, at some point in the future when/if something is ever "proven" or brought forward exposing the ruse.

I've stated before it's far more amazing to me this all came from a guy who's been dead for 45 of the last 49 years since the incident. Apparently Scientology™ has nothing on Bigfootology, except maybe a bunch more money and a bigger pool of attorneys.

[Drewbot]

There should be a rule that there are no assaults, or attempted murders at the PGF surrounding area. Then I might go.

"HOLY GROUND HIGHLANDER!!" - The Kurgan

[DennyT]

There are dangers but not from people. Broken ankle, lions, bears, heart attack.

[DennyT]

BFBM:

Originally Posted by DennyT

BFBM
Which measurements are you referring to, on Green's and Dahinden's diagrams?

[Spektator]

Originally Posted by DennyT

There are dangers but not from people. Broken ankle, lions, bears, heart attack.

Oh, my.

[Cervelo]

Originally Posted by bigfootbookman

Why go to the moon? It's not like you can grow watermelon there.

For me it's a fascinating piece of local history in my area, and I'd like to see some kind of resolution to it all.

Why do all of you discuss it here, if it's of no interest? Even if it's just the site of a great hoax, knowing the details of the site and its area can be of use in studying that.

Wow....you just compared going to the Moon to going to Bluff Creek....classic footer stuff!

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by DennyT

There are dangers but not from people. Broken ankle, lions, bears, heart attack.

Sounds like a threat to me.

[LTC8K6]

There are no useful details at the site 40+ years later, imo.

There weren't even any 10 days later, apparently. The simple act of photographing the site was too much, even for believers, anywhere near the time the film was made.

No attempt was made to secure and document this supposedly historic site. A site that at the time, was known to flood. A site that had in fact, recently seen a devastating flood.

Even when believers finally did bring cameras to this supposedly historic site, they still didn't document the site. They claimed to be able to see the trackway, but they apparently don't bother to film or photograph it.

We are now supposed to care 4+ decades on?

[Cervelo]

Footers/Belevvvers care, because for some it's the lynch pin of their mythology and the pilgrimage to the site with the like minded reinforces their conviction.
But hey if that's how they want to spend their time and it gets them out and about, good for them.
But when that hobby starts being spun as anything other than what it is...."why go to the moon"....that's when I suspect either someone is being disingenuous or might need to seek a different discussion forum.

[The Shrike]

On the fence - I attach agency to things and places so the "piece of Americana" stuff appeals to me. I can also see LTC8K6's point that the site is so different now that any kind of objective examination with relevance to the film is probably untenable.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by bigfootbookman

Actually, the Dahinden photo contains the whole area of the trackway seen in the film, but lacks the foreground logjam area as you note. At first Patterson was filming down in the creekbed, facing northeastward, just to the left of the corner of the photo, but the subject was up on that sandbar already in Frame One. Patterson eventually moved forward to the spot marked with the red square in the image. That is approximately the Frame 352 position. After that he moved up forward and a bit sideways to the left, moving his camera from the northward view toward the east, to capture the retreat part of the film.

The front edge of the sandbar where the red square is shown has been eaten away by the creek's erosion, so the current Frame One and camera positions are both just off the edge of the current sandbar.

There are many things we've wished over the years had been documented by Dahinden, Titmus, Byrne or Green, but I suppose film was expensive then. Either that, or all the great stuff is hidden in Dahinden's son's barn.

IMO, Dahinden's photo misses more than you describe here. It not only misses the logjam - it misses the creek near the jam, it misses where Patterson would have been thrown/dismounted from his horse, it misses where Patty would have been when they first saw her, it misses where she was walking before Patterson changed position, and it misses the logging road entirely even in the area which he did capture on film. That might not even be a complete list of what is not shown in the Dahinden photo.

What is to the left of that photo can only be imagined and maybe try to reconstruct. But there is no proper reference to inform anyone that their speculation is accurate.

I am particularly interested in the story told by P&G about when they first saw Patty. They were riding on the logging road and Patty was entirely hidden "behind" that logjam until they reached a critical point on the road and then she was revealed. This sets up a possible vectoring scenario involving the road, the riders, the logjam, Patty, and the creek. If we knew the facts of that layout we might be able to test their story for plausibility. We might be able to say that their initial encounter could not have happened the way they said it did, and instead was a staged hoax with a fabricated narrative. Without the additional information we are deprived of doing much of anything with the initial encounter and that whole area to the left of Rene's photo.

[DennyT]

Roger Knights:
on p. 81 of the previous thread, you wrote:

Quote:

Here’s a 4-page Item criticizing the “failing memory” defense in more detail. http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/1...unt-for-flubs/

The host for this document requires the installation of a piece of malware, in order to download the pdf. Just thought I'd warn people not to go near it. I guess you get some sort of fee for messing up people's computers? or just some sort of way to hassle people who don't believe in fairies bigfoot? And, perhaps IF you'd actually like people to read it, you could post it here. Or send it to me via a PM here.

[DennyT]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

IMO, Dahinden's photo misses more than you describe here. It not only misses the logjam - it misses the creek near the jam, it misses where Patterson would have been thrown/dismounted from his horse, it misses where Patty would have been when they first saw her, it misses where she was walking before Patterson changed position, and it misses the logging road entirely even in the area which he did capture on film. That might not even be a complete list of what is not shown in the Dahinden photo.

What is to the left of that photo can only be imagined and maybe try to reconstruct. But there is no proper reference to inform anyone that their speculation is accurate.

I am particularly interested in the story told by P&G about when they first saw Patty. They were riding on the logging road and Patty was entirely hidden "behind" that logjam until they reached a critical point on the road and then she was revealed. This sets up a possible vectoring scenario involving the road, the riders, the logjam, Patty, and the creek. If we knew the facts of that layout we might be able to test their story for plausibility. We might be able to say that their initial encounter could not have happened the way they said it did, and instead was a staged hoax with a fabricated narrative. Without the additional information we are deprived of doing much of anything with the initial encounter and that whole area to the left of Rene's photo.

This is quite insightful; there is not only too much focus on "the-film-itself" (copyright Bill Munns), but also, within the film, on just the 5 seconds that are somewhat stable, and as a consequence it comes down to subjective opinions about costumes. There is potential for analysis in the other parts of the film, both before and after the "look-back' section. And the site, while over grown with small trees, definitely still has more information than you would guess from the age of the film.

On a related note, Bill Munns made a stab (ok a wild slash) at trying to do more with "vectoring" and measurements. BFBM may correct me here, but I think that the rediscovery crew was banking on him doing an extensive write-up of the site, as he told people he was going to do, after visiting the site in 2012. After much celebration and some rather premature claims, however, things didn't work out that way. Bill has essentially folded his tent, and left the crew holding the bag, so to speak. IOW, the diagram is really a draft of an illustration of a report that was never written.

As a consequence, IMHO, analysis of the film site ground to a halt. There are other factors, of course, in this lack of progress. The site is remote, and the hike does not lend itself to transporting camping and/or survey equipment. 99% of those who go there do not care about "analysis". The crew is more focussed on their game-cam project.

[EHocking]

Or, Munns realised that the actual layout on the ground did not gel with his CGI software guesswork and that the actual measurements would contradict his lens focal length/bf height assertions.

... disappeared into the ether, just as he did at JREF when he realised most posters had the measure of him.

[DennyT]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Or, Munns realised that the actual layout on the ground did not gel with his CGI software guesswork and that the actual measurements would contradict his lens focal length/bf height assertions.

yup

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

I certainly know Patty was a bloke in a suit and Bigfoot is a myth but if I lived in the film area I'd go try to find it. It'd be fun. I'd also get measurements because I'm a bit of a geek. For those reasons I am a little baffled at the cynicism directed at BFBM.

Many of you seem to have become jaded and have turned into cynics. Didn't any of you spend your childhood playing in the woods? BFBM may enjoy playing in the woods. He's also helping believers and skeptics by getting the data both sides say they want. Are there other motives for the work he performed? Of course there are but even without those motives I can understand doing it just for fun.

Seems they're doing a hell of a lot more than is necessary for a bunch of grown men, tbh.

[DennyT]

I can't speak for the Crew there, but I am going to surmise the rediscovery effort would not have occurred but for Bill Munns and/or his work. If you look at the timing, it seems like people were saying "Hey, Munns can prove Patty is real if he can get measurements of the actual site." So it went on, they found it, and while they were waiting for him, they started this trail cam thing, which is now the main activity. I have no idea how long they will keep it up, but I can tell you this, there is a party being planned there, for the 50th anniversary, next year. Without some outside funding, and obviously without any bigfoots imaged, I would guess the whole thing will collapse after that. I could be wrong.

[Drewbot]

I heard that IS- Bigfoot Forums are having a gathering at the film site during the 50th anniversary celebration. There will be bigfoot suits, howling, wood knocking, craft-beer, well-aged Bourbon, and babes.

This is just a rumor. I have not verified this.