AmyStrange.org and the UNeXpLaiNed ©Copyrighted by Dave Ayotte & Caty Bergman
UNX: Sasquatch (AKA Bigfoot)
THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
TOC (Table Of Contents) READ WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING EDITED
01.00 INTRODUCTION: SASQUATCH (AKA Bigfoot) 01.01 SUMMARY 01.02 DEFINITIONS 02.00 HISTORY 02.01 NATIVE AMERICAN LEGENDS AND FOLKLORE 02.02 PRE MODERN AGE OF BIGFOOT 02.03 MODERN AGE OF BIGFOOT 02.99 TIMELINE 03.00 ADVANCED DEGREE 03.01 REVIEW 04.00 RESEARCH NOTES 05.00 BIBLIOGRAPHY 06.00 FOOTNOTES 07.00 RELATED WEBPAGES 08.00 RELATED SUBJECTS 09.00 etc... 09.99 CONTACT INFORMATION 01.00
01.01 SUMMARY 01.02 DEFINITIONS
This webpage is specifically written about and refers to the large unknown ape-like bipeds seen on the North American continent, sometimes referred to as Bigfoot; and not the many other similar unknown animals sighted around the rest of the world, the Yeti is a good example.
We have (or will soon have) other webpages setup that are dedicated specifically to each one of them. Some of the unknown creature sightings may be related to Sasquatch, and some may not. The Michigan Dogman for example. These seem to be more canine in nature rather than Bigfoot sightings. So in order to put more information out there rather than less, we are in the process of creating webpages for all of them also.
One of the reasons we separate them is because each one has its own characteristics and history, but that doesn't preclude the fact that all these mysterious creatures may be the same kind of creature. It's possible, although I don't think entirely probable. Dave thinks it's more probable than I do, but that's what makes our many discussions and debates so much fun, and interesting.
Dave believes Bigfoot (Sasquatch) exist. He says there's just way too much evidence for there not to be something to it all, and that something is Bigfoot, even if the evidence is mostly eyewitness, word of mouth and not absolute proof like a real live specimen.
I agree there must be something to it also, but Dave takes it that one step further and believes it exist. I personally have no problem with this, anything is possible, just not always probable. The critical thinker in me just wishes there was more evidence besides what's available. In short, I need a body to prove it absolutely, unlike Dave who doesn't really care if a body is ever found or a live specimen captured or shot, not that I advocate going out and killing one in order to prove it, but I do definitely believe in almost all the current research being done. From the scientific expeditions going out to try and find a Sasquatch, to the many shows that ask if Sasquatch is real. I like them better when they're not just asking it with tongue in cheek, but actually and really going out there and looking at all the evidence, and not skewing it so alternate explanations are represented in such a way that they look like they're the real explanations. Just because an "expert" thinks a Sasquatch sighting is really a misidentified bear sighting, doesn't automatically make it such, anymore than saying it's a Sasquatch sighting automatically make it so either. It's a two way street here. As any scientist will tell you, or they should anyway, truth is sometimes way stranger than any fiction.
The scientific part of me finds it all fascinating and I think it's worth the time of anyone who wants to investigate or research the possibility that Sasquatch exist. There is just too much unexplained phenomena around to even suggest that anything is truly impossible, but that's just my opinion. One more thing that I also believe, and sadly it really shouldn't just be my opinion, is that scientist (and ultimately science) should be open minded, and not close-minded to anything, and if they need to be skeptical, they should also be skeptical of themselves. I think Ivan T. Sanderson (1911-1973) said it best when he wrote in 1948:
Page 14 from
" ...The very basis of science is a healthy skepticism --one, moreover, that should question the skeptic who denies the possibility of anything just as readily as it should question the benighted traveler who dares affirm it."
Though, we disagree slightly on it's existence, me and Dave both agree there is something definitely going on in the woods of North America and any research to clarify the situation should be encouraged, not ridiculed as many scientists seem to want to do. The evidence and discussion that follows is so you yourself can decide what is and what isn't probable. Read it all yourself and then decide. That's all we ask, and also one of the major reasons we set up this website, and especially this webpage.
Anyway, the best description we've found explaining, in quick precise detail, the history of Sasquatch is from a book by Kelly Milner Halls:
Page 1 from
In Search of Sasquatch
"The term Sasquatch was identified in the late 1920s by the Canadien journalist Ralph Burns, based on the First Nation Indian Tribe's Salish word for the hairy giant. Broader interest in the apelike biped, a creature that stands on two feet, began in 1957, when the Texas oil tycoon Tom Slick funded the search for Asia's mysterious biped --called Yeti-- in the mountains of Tibet.
"A decade later the Patterson-Gimlin film, shot by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in northern California in 1967, made Sasquatch a household name.
"But centuries before Burns, Slick, Patterson or Gimlin made their claims, thousands of Native Americans had eyewitness accounts of their own."
Very well written, we think, and with that said, let's get started, but first a little message from our definition squad.
ANGLICIZE: To make a foreign word or phrase look like english.
BIGFOOT: Usually refers to Sasquatch especially within this website, but in the real world can sometimes refer to "Bigfoot" the Monster Truck.
BIPED: An animal that has the ability to stand and walk on two feet for an appreciable amount of time.
SELIS: The word refers to another anglicized spelling of the word Salish. You can see the original and actual anglicized spelling of the word in image IMG-001a.
SALISH: Usually refers to the First American Tribes in the Pacific Northwest that generally spoke some form of the Salish language.
SÁSQ'ETS: And it's variant spelling Sasqets, means "hairy giant" in the Salish language. It was the word from which Sasquatch was derived.
SASQUATCH: Comes from the Salish name (Sásq'ets) for a Bigfoot like creature found in many Native American legends.
02.01 NATIVE AMERICAN LEGENDS AND FOLKLORE 02.01a ARE NATIVE AMERICAN LEGENDS TRUE? 02.01b WHAT ARE THE NATIVE AMERICAN LEGENDS? 02.01c CURRENT RESEARCH 02.02 PRE MODERN AGE OF BIGFOOT 02.02a 1492 TO 1892 02.02b 1893 TO 1958 02.03 MODERN AGE OF BIGFOOT 02.99 TIMELINE
Although we use the "Sásq'ets" spelling (and it's variant "Saesqets" and also "Selis") in the following discussions, the actual anglicized spellings (from the original Salish pronounciations) can be seen (respectively) in image IMG-001a to the right.
The word Sasquatch was derived from an original First Nation Indian Tribe's Salish (Selis) word which was anglicized to spell Sásq'ets (Saesqet) (see the image IMG-image 001a on the right for the correct spelling) which when it was translated meant "hairy giant", and even though Sásq'ets isn't the only word in all the Native American tribal languages that describes a kind of Sasquatch like creature, J. W. Burns, a Canadian journalist, is credited with coming up with the name "Sasquatch" itself and also popularizing it in a series of articles written in the 1920s:
"Various local legends were compiled by J. W. Burns in a series of Canadian newspaper articles in the 1920s. Each language had its own name for the local version. Many names meant something along the lines of 'wild man' or 'hairy man' although other names described common actions it was said to perform (e.g. eating clams). Burns coined the term Sasquatch, which is from the Halkomelem sásq'ets, and used it in his articles to describe a hypothetical single type of creature reflected in these various stories. Burns's articles popularized both the legend and its new name, making it well known in western Canada before it gained popularity in the United States."
Here's more on the Salish Peoples from Wikipedia:
"The Salish peoples are an ethno-linguistic group of the Pacific Northwest, identified by their use of the Salish languages which diversified out of Proto-Salish between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago.
"The term 'Salish' originated in the modern era as an exonym created for linguistic research. Salish is an Anglicization of selis (the correct spelling is the second word in image IMG-001a to the right), the endonym for the Salish Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. The selis were the easternmost Salish people and the first to have a diplomatic relationship with the United States so their name was applied broadly to all peoples speaking a related language.
"Modern Salish peoples include the Nuxálk, Comox, Halkomelem, Lushootseed, Nooksack, Pentlatch, Sháshíshálh, Squamish, Klallam, Northern Straits, Twana, Cowlitz, Upper Chehalis, Lower Chehalis, Quinault, Tillamook, Shuswap, Lillooet, Thompson River Salish, Coeur d'Alene, Moses-Columbian, Colville-Okanagan, and Spokane-Kalispel-Flathead."
[02.01a]: Are Native American Legends True? TOC
Sorry to say but a legend doesn't have the same clout as say a real live Sasquatch would. Talking about a tree for year after year doesn't have the same realism as actually seeing the tree, but that doesn't mean all that talk about the tree wasn't true, there certainly was enough talk about it so you assume there must be something to it. It's just that seeing the tree yourself makes the stories more real.
To take this example one step further, if only one person talked about the tree, it wouldn't be unusual for everyone else to think maybe it was just a story, but when almost half the town talks about this same tree, even though you still have to see it, the sheer volume of stories makes the realism of the tree that much more credible. And even if you go out and see this tree, and it's nothing like everyone else described it, at least there really was a tree, and it existed whether you believed it did or didn't.
When your loved ones aren't around and you talk about them to people who have never seen them, no one questions that your loved ones are real. How about cities or continents or other galaxies that you've never been to or seen except on TV or only read about in books or off the internet. Are they really real also? It's kind of the same thing, at least in a philosophical feel-good kind of way, at least that's the way I feel about it anyway. It's all a matter of perspective really, which are governed by your belief systems. I like to call them people's "I wish" systems.
This reminds me of an analogy Dave once used. What happens after you die? No one knows for sure except for those of us who have died or will die, which is arguably unavoidable. Dave believes there is life after death, simply because if he's wrong, no one will know it. Consequently, those who didn't believe will have to deal with the fact that they were wrong. It's a good arguement and also applies to anything anyone may choose to believe, or disbelieve. The truth is real regardless of who believes it, or doesn't.
Although eyewitness, or word of mouth testimony, doesn't have the same realism as an actual specimen would (to use our tree example above), what does give it some clout (same example) is the sheer volume of examples in both Native American legends and from modern times also, and how so many of them give the same general description related to the Sasquatch legends.
Many Native American Sasquatch legends are handed down from generation to generation vocally (it was the Native American's way of handing information down like a kind of encyclopedia of Native American knowledge, except it was told in story form rather than written down) and many times told in such a way that didn't really clarify whether the stories or creatures were real or not.
For some reason, some of them remind me of the monologue given by Rod Serling when he introduced many of the "Twilight Zone" stories from the original series. A kind of, this may not be true except in the "Twilight Zone" kind of thing. But, what if there really is a "Twilight Zone"; we just haven't found it yet.
We could have used the title "Native American Stories" instead, but calling something a story doesn't really help it any better than calling it a legend does, so mostly because calling them "Legends" gives them some historical value; "Legends" is what we decided to stick with, but we didn't stop there.
I personally don't know whether the Native American Legends are true or not, and even after many lengthy discussions and arguements between me and Dave, we still haven't come to a consensus between us as to whether they are or not, but the one thing we do agree on is that it is very interesting that they predate modern Sasquatch sightings, giving the modern sightings a little more credibility, and vice versa. In short, how can it all be a hoax if Native Americans have eye-witness accounts (or stories if you prefer) about them also, and since the legends predate modern sightings, that gives the modern ones some kind of historical basis to them also.
Which brings us to probably the only real (kind of) "official" scientific research currently being done, in the Sasquatch realm anyway, which is in the folklore department (not a real department, per se), which also just happens to include a category involving the study of Native American Legends. So we decided that we should add it to the title, to maybe give the subject a little more scientific credibility. We could have just used Native American Folklore instead of Legends, but ultimately we decided to include them both in the final title. More is sometimes better than less.
I admit it's a slippery slope either way, but the fact remains that even though most of the Native American Legends describe a slightly different creature from the Salish People's creature; again and we can never stress this enough, all together they give more credence to our favorite mantra that there must be something out there in the backwoods of North America that we haven't captured or studied yet. Something big and hairy that stands up and walks on two legs like we do, but isn't human.
So, are Native American Legends true? Each individual sighting or story can be questioned for sure, but when the sightings and stories begin mounting up and up, you have to start wondering what is or isn't true. For us what it comes down to is, are all these people lying? We don't think they all are and maybe there is, at the least, some grain of truth to what they're all saying. So in conclusion, we think there's a really good probability that many (if not all) of them may be based on some kind of truth.
That truth, in our opinion, is what most people are searching for when they look for Sasquatch. Like the tree, maybe it won't be exactly like they think it is, or maybe like Dave believes, it will be exactly like the same tree everyone's been talking about all along.
Only time will tell us for sure.
[02.01b]: What Are the Native American Legends? TOC
Page 5 from
In Search of Sasquatch
"The author and anthropologist Kathy Moskowitz Strain has invested years gathering stories of Sasquatch from Native American eyewitnesses and other reliable sources. Here are just a few of the names she has documented."
TRIBE TRADITIONAL NAME ENGLISH TRANSLATION Cherokee [GA, NC, SC, TN] --------------- Kecleh-Kudleh ----- Hairy Savage Chickasaw [AL, MS, OK, TN] -------------- Lofa -------------- Smelly, hairy being that could speak Chinook [OR, WA] ------------------------ Itohiul ----------- Big Feet Hoopa [CA] ------------------------------ Oh Mah ------------ Boss of the Woods Hopi [AZ] ------------------------------- Chayeyu ----------- Giant Iroquois/ Seneca [NY, Canada] ----------- Ge no sawa -------- Stone Giants Navaho [AZ, CO, NM, UT] ----------------- Ye'iitsoh --------- Big Giant Puyallup/ Nisqually [WA] ---------------- Steta'l ----------- Spirit Spear Shoshone [CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WY] --- Dzo'avits --------- Cannibal Giant Sioux [IA, MN, MT, NE, ND, SD, Canada] -- Chiye-tanka ------- Big Man Spokane [WA] ---------------------------- Sc'wen'ye't ------- Tall Burnt Hair Tsimshian [AK, Canada] ------------------ Ba'oosh ----------- Ape or Monkey Wenatchee [OR, WA] ---------------------- Choanito ---------- Night People Yakama/ Klickitat [OR, WA] -------------- Qui yihahs -------- The Brother (hairy) Zuni [AZ, CO, NM, UT] ------------------- Atahsaia ---------- Cannibal Demon
ApMo ---- Ape or Monkey ---------------------------- [AK, Canada] TSIMSHIAN BiFe ---- Big Feet -------------------------------------- [OR, WA] CHINOOK BiGi ---- Big Giant ------------------------------- [AZ, CO, NM, UT] NAVAHO BiMa ---- Big Man ------------------ [IA, MN, MT, NE, ND, SD, Canada] SIOUX BoWo ---- Boss of the Woods ----------------------------------- [CA] HOOPA CaDe ---- Cannibal Demon ---------------------------- [AZ, CO, NM, UT] ZUNI CaGi ---- Cannibal Giant ------------- [CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WY] SHOSHONE Gi ------ Giant ------------------------------------------------- [AZ] HOPI HaBr ---- The Brother (hairy) ------------------ [OR, WA] YAKAMA/ KLICKITAT HaSa ---- Hairy Savage -------------------------- [GA, NC, SC, TN] CHEROKEE NiPe ---- Night People --------------------------------- [OR, WA] WENATCHEE SmHaSp -- Smelly, hairy being that could speak -- [AL, MS, OK, TN] CHICKSAW SeGi ---- Stone Giants --------------------- [NY, Canada] IROQUOIS/ SENECA StSr ---- Spirit Spear --------------------------- [WA] PUYALLUP/ NISQUALLY TaBuHa -- Tall Burnt Hair ------------------------------------ [WA] SPOKANE
The above two lists are by no means complete, but they're still a good representation of the many names that seem to refer to Sasquatch in Native American legends. The list directly above was a rearrangement of the original list (which you can see just above the one directly above), so the english translations are first, with a corresponding abbreviation to it's left. These abbreviations were then charted on the map below (IMG-001b).
The following key, to the right of image IMG-001b, is an alphabetized list of abbreviations that can be helpful in deciphering the descriptive abbreviations charted on the map below. The numbers, between brackets, to the right of some of the translated names, are the number of times they appear in the original list of translated tradional Native American names above. You can assume that all translations without numbers appear only once on the list.
Ap ---- Ape Bi ---- Big  Bo ---- Boss Br ---- Brother Bu ---- Burnt Ca ---- Cannibal  De ---- Demon Fe ---- Feet Gi ---- Giant(s)  Ha ---- Hair(y)  Ma ---- Man Mo ---- Monkey Ni ---- Night Pe ---- People Sa ---- Savage Se ---- Stone Sm ---- Smelly Sp ---- Speak Sr ---- Spear St ---- Spirit Ta ---- Tall Wo ---- Woods
After a quick glance, the first thing I noticed, Dave noticed it after I pointed it out to him, is that the english "Ape or Monkey" (ApMo) descriptive translation (from the Tsimshian name "Ba'oosh") of a Sasquatch like creature up near the Alaskan and Canadian border seems to change to a predominantly "Giant" description as it travels South. Now, since the names mapped out above is not a complete list of all the traditional Native American names, our following analysis may not be entirely accurate, but until we do more research in this area, we'll stick with our original impressions, for the time being anyway.
The known history of the Native Americans, compared to the known history of the Europeans, is sketchy at best, but some of the things that are known are also used as evidence to bolster the following accepted notion:
"The first evidence showing indigenous people to inhabit North America indicates that they migrated there from Siberia over 11,000 years ago. More than likely, they crossed the Bering Land Bridge, which was in existence during the Ice Age... "
If you take as gospel the generally accepted notion by most archeologist and anthropologist that humans first arrived on the North American continent, by way of the Bering-Strait Land Bridge, approximately about 10,000 years ago; something else also seems to be suggested.
If it was possible for early Native Americans to originally migrate from Asia across the Bering Strait to North America, it also suggest that maybe humans weren't the only ones that crossed. What it suggested to us specifically is that Sasquatch, or it's earliest relatives possibly an ape or monkey, may have crossed the Bering Strait also. It's an interesting suggestion to us, because the probabilities are higher that more than one species migrated, rather than only just one species out of a million.
Besides suggesting that maybe a species of ape or monkey also crossed, it also maybe suggest that they crossed millions of years ago before humans. We agree it's all a leap, but once you take that leap, interesting possibilities begin to pop up. For example, since their move isolated them from their original group, and since there really was no where to go except back to Asia, and maybe one group went back to Asia and another group traveled south down into North America, maybe as far south as South America; and maybe this splintered group, or groups, as they traveled south, being once again isolated from their original group, may have also evolved differently either physically or maybe just their descriptions evolved, or maybe both, maybe really becoming giants and cannibals in the process.
As far as the cannabilism translation is concerned, we both noticed it was generally located near the same area where the Donner party ended up cannibalizing their own also. Maybe there's a relation there.
There are two major problems with our original migration theory. The first is the question, why did the Native Americans grow in number but Sasquatch didn't? Was there a conflict between Sasquatch and the Native Americans like what happened between them and the Europeans beginning in the 1500s, and maybe the Native Americans won that conflict and as a result, Sasquatch went into hiding, afraid to interact with humans ever again.
The second is that there is no real evidence to support this migration or conflict, except a whole mess of legends and modern sightings.
All together, this lowers the probability that this theoretical migration actually occurred, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, just not as probable as Dave would like it to be. Myself, when I look at the evidence skeptically, from both sides, not just one side, I don't think the probability is as low as most people think, but more on that later.
[02.01c]: Current Research TOC
Giants, Cannibals & Monsters: Bigfoot in Native Culture
by Kathy Moskowitz Strain
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science
by Jeff Meldrum
Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch II (Anthropological Monographs)
by Roderick Sprague
Once we start reading these books, we'll get back to this section of our Sasquatch page and add more content, which we've already done below.
SOURCE: Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot
NIMOY: "The oldest account of Bigfoot was recorded in 986 A.D. by Leif Erickson and his men. During their first landing in the new world, the Norsemen wrote about monsters that were horribly ugly, hairy, swarthy and with great, black eyes... "
In 1840, Elkanah Walker, a missionary with the Spokane Indians of Washington State, related some "superstitions" he had heard, from the local Native Americans, about a race of giants that lived in the mountains. Read more...
We've talked it over and decided that the dividing line the between Native American Legends and Folklore and the Modern Age Of Bigfoot was the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the West Indies in 1492. Not withstanding the earlier recorded account of a Sasquatch-like monster in 986 A.D. by Leif Erickson and his men, 1492 was when accounts started getting written down on paper, more and more people started coming over, which meant more and more accounts, as we noted above.
We also decided, at the same time, to further divide the Modern Age into two sections, a Pre Modern Age and Modern Age, using the discovery by a work crew of a set of large tracks in Northern California in 1958 as the beginning of the Modern Age of Bigfoot.
[02.02a]: 1492 to 1892 TOC
1734 - 1820
"Frontiersman Daniel Boone [1734–1820] reported having shot and killed 'a ten-foot, hairy giant he called a Yahoo.' Folktale scholar Hugh H. Trotti has argued that Boone’s account may have been the inspiration for some of the Bigfoot stories told in North America."
As we run across more, we'll include them above. One noted event that occured after 1492, was more of a report about Native American superstitions, rather than an actual sighting, was a letter written in 1840.
In 1840, Elkanah Walker, a missionary with the Spokane Indians of Washington State, that describes a race of giants lived in the mountains that came down sometimes to steal salmon, and eat them raw. Their visits were preceeded by strong disagreeable smell.
The following exerpt is from the book:
"Nine Years With The Spokane Indian
The Diary, 1838-1848, of Elkanah Walker"
by Clifford M. Drury
"'Bear with me if I trouble you with a little of their superstitions. They believe in a race of giants, which inhabit a certain mountain off to the west of us. This mountain is covered with perpetual snow. They (the creatures) inhabit the snow peaks. They hunt and do all their work at night. They are men stealers.
"'They come to the people's lodges at night when the people are asleep and take them and put them under their skins and to their place of abode without even waking. Their track is a foot and a half long. They steal salmon from Indian nets and eat then raw as the bears do. If the people are awake, they always know when they are coming very near by their strong smell that is most intolerable. It is not uncommon for them to come in the night and give three whistles and then the stones will begin to hit their houses.' (Drury 1976, pp. 122-123)"
In 1884, a strange creature was allegedly captured near Yale, British Columbia in Canada. It was nicknamed "Jacko" and some researchers have called this a "Young Bigfoot". In the following exerpt, the "Jacko" legend is discussed as if it is a hoax. It reveals some good evidence that gives them a good basis for why they believe it is a hoax:
"The Jacko hoax was a Canadian newspaper story about a gorilla supposedly caught near Yale, British Columbia in 1884. The story, titled 'What is it?, A strange creature captured above Yale. A British Columbia Gorilla', appeared in the British Columbia newspaper the Daily Colonist on July 4th, 1884. On July 9th, 1884, the Mainland Guardian newspaper in New Westminster, British Columbia stated 'that no such animal was caught, and how the Colonist was duped in such a manner, and by such a story, is strange.' On July 11, 1884, the newspaper British Columbian reported that about 200 people went to view 'Jacko' at the jail where he was supposedly kept, but the people found only a man at the jail who fielded questions about a creature that did not exist.
"The 'Jacko' story has been used by Bigfoot advocates as evidence for the existence of Sasquatch. The original newspaper article describes 'Jacko' as a gorilla and not a Sasquatch. Many books about Bigfoot and cryptids have featured the event and cite the original newspaper article. In 2008 Michael Cremo discussed the story as possible proof for the existence of Sasquatch... "
It's highly probable that the "Jacko" story is a hoax, but we're not so sure that many Sasquatch researchers consider "Jacko" to be a real cryptid. We can understand why it is included in documentaries and books. It's part of the story, like the 1958 finding of tracks in Northern California, we believe you have to include it also, hoax or not.
We've found the actual, page three, photo scanned, Daily Colonist (now called the British Colonist) article printed on July 4, 1884 and discussed above on Wikipedia's "Jacko Hoax" webpage that allegedly started the whole "Jacko" incident and subsequent events (note how the Daily Colonist refers to itself as The Colonist just above the Location and Date Stamp. Also, note the date, 1882. Typo?):
Page 3 from
http://europa.library.uvic.ca/colonist/display.php?issue=18840704 - ARCHIVED COPY [ +8M ]
"WHAT IS IT?
"A STRANGE CREATURE CAPTURED ABOVE YALE.
"A British Columbia Gorilla.
"(Correspondence of The Colonist)
"Yale, B.C., July 3rd, 1882.
"In the immediate vicinity of No. 4 tunnel, situated some twenty miles above this village, are bluffs of rock which have hitherto been unsurmountable, but on Monday morning last were successfully scaled by Mr. Onderdonk's employes [sic] on the regular train from Lytton. Assisted by Mr. Costerton, the British Columbia Express Company's messenger, and a number of gentlemen from Lytton and points east of that place who, after considerable trouble and perilous climbing, succeeded in capturing a creature which may truly be called half man and half beast. "Jacko" as the creature has been called by his capturers, is something of the gorilla type standing about four feet seven inches in height and weighing 127 pounds. He has long, black, strong hair and resembles a human being with one exception his entire body, excepting his hands, (or paws) and feet are covered with glossy hair about one inch long. His fore arm is much longer than a man's fore arm, and he possesses extraordinary strength, as he will take hold of a stick and break it by wrenching or twisting it, which no man living could break in the same way. Since his capture he is very reticent, only occasionally uttering a noise which is half bark and half growl. He is however, becoming daily more attached to his keeper, Mr. George Tilbury, of this place, who proposes shortly starting for London, England to exhibit him. His favorite food so far is berries and he drinks fresh milk with evident relish. By advice of Dr. Hannington raw meats have been witheld from Jacko, as the doctor thinks it would have a tendency to make him savage. The mode of capturre was as follows. Ned Austin, the engineer, on coming in sight of the bluff at the eastern end of the No. 4 tunnel saw what he supposed to be a man lying asleep in close proximity to the track, and as quick as thought blew the signal to apply the brakes. The brakes were instantly applied, and in a few seconds the train was brounght to a stand still. At this moment the supposed man sprang up, and uttering a sharp quick bark began to climb the steep bluff. Conductor R. J. Craig and Express Messenger Costerton, followed by the baggageman and brakesmen, jumped from the train and knowing they were some twenty minutes ahead of time immediately gave chase. After five minutes of perilous climbing the then supposed demented Indian was corralled on a projecting shelf of rock where he could neither ascend or descend. The query now was how to capture him alive, which was quickly decided by Mr. Craig, who crawled on his hands and knees until he was about forty feet above the creature. Taking a small piece of loose rock he let it fall and it had the desired effect of rendering poor Jacko incapable of resistance for a time at least. The bell rope was then brought up and Jacko was now lowered to terra firma. After firmly binding him and placing him in the baggage car "etf brakes" [sic] was sounded and the train started for Yale. At the station a large crowd who had heard of the capture by telephone from Spuzzum Flat were assembled, each one anxious to have the first look at the monstrosity, but they were disappointed, as Jacko had been taken off at the machine shops and placed in charge of his present keeper.
"The question naturally arises, how came the creature where it was first seen by Mr. Austin? From bruises about its head and body, and apparent soreness since its capture, it is supposed that Jacko ventured too near the edge of the bluff, slipped, fell and lay where found until the sound of the rushing train aroused him. Mr. Thos. White and Mr. Gouin, C. E., as well as Mr. Major, who kept a small store about a half a mile west of the tunnel during the past two years, have mentioned having seen a curious creature at different points between Camps 13 and 17, but no attention was paid to their remarks as people came to the conclusion that they had either seen a bear or stray Indian dog. Who can unravel the mystery that now surrounds Jacko? Does he belong to a species hitherto unknown in this part of the continent, or is he really what the trainmen first thought he was, a crazy Indian?"
We noticed three things right off hand. The first was that the Daily Colonist (now known as the British Colonist) refers to itself as "The Colonist" within the article itself. This will be important when we discuss two Sasquatch-like reports below, one in 1904 and another in 1907.
The second was the date 1882. The whole text was copied word for word and sometimes letter by letter to be sure the page three photo scan was accurately reproduced into text. The date "July 3rd, 1882" is a true representation of what was printed in the original article. You can check this out yourself by going to the source link above or the archived copy link, to the right of the source link, on our website.
Is 1882 the real year, or is it merely someone putting up the wrong type to be printed, which wasn't caught by the first run (and subsequent) proofreaders? Typesetters usually don't proofread facts in an article, all they are really responsible for is that the first run proofs represents the original correspondents piece itself. The question then becomes, did the original corespondent read the printed piece itself, and if they did, what did they think of the year 1882 that was printed in the Location and Date Stamp at the beginning of the actual article above.
A correspondence back then, and even today, mostly means a written (or typed) letter or note of some kind. Correspondence, which also refers to a correspondent today which can also mean a reporter or writer that is officially associated with a specific publisher, in this case the Daily Colonist. Another explanation that we both thought of was that the year 1882 may have been used as an excuse to explain why no evidence was found to prove or disprove the article, the wrong year was researched. It's interesting none the less that the date "July 3rd" was used, which was the day before the date the newspaper was printed, July 4th. Maybe that's why nobody noticed the 1882 date, they assumed, until someone actually looks at the date, "July 3rd, 1882" and sees the 1882 instead of the assumed 1884.
Dave and I both proofread this website, so we both know how easy it is to not actually see something and assume it's something else. One of Dave's old college english teachers, who taught him everything he now knows about punctuation and grammar, suggested a way to avoid this, was to read anything you write backwards, word by word, letter by letter. It's good advice, I think.
Although we haven't found anything yet to definitively explain whether it's a typo or not, we're still looking. Of course, researching this may be a total waste of time, and who cares really whether the date was 1882 or 1884? To us, anything in a strange story is open for discussion. It may be nothing, or it may be something. The only way to be sure is to actually check it out and find out for yourself.
Anyway, the last thing we noticed were the amount of names written into the article. We're these people contacted and interviewed, or was their existence even verified? We haven't done enough research into this reported sighting to know for sure, but we'll definitely get back to this later.
[02.02a]: 1893 - 1958 TOC
From "The Wilderness Hunter", written by Theodore Roosevelt and published in 1893, comes a second hand account of an alleged Sasquatch like sighting that turns violent and deadly. Many critics consider this story just a tall tale, and it does have some of the elements of an urban legend, but consider for the minute how the book "Mysteries of the Unexplained" discusses the tall tale, it's worth considering before dismissing it outright:
Pages 152-153 fr0m
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
"Theodore Roosevelt was no pushover for a tall tale, but he was impressed by a story he recounted in his book The Wilderness Hunter, published in 1893. The incident, which had occured many years beforem was related to Roosevelt, as the latter wrote,"' ...by a grisled, weather-beaten old mountain hunter, named Bauman, who was born and had passed his life on the frontier. He must have believed what he said, for he could hardly repress a shudder at certain points of the tale...
"'When the event occurred Bauman was still a young man, and was trapping with a partner among the mountains dividing the forks of the Salmon from the head of Wisdom River. Not having had much luck, he and his partner determined to go up into a particularily wild and lonely pass through which ran a small stream said to contain many beaver. The pass had an evil reputation because the year before a solitary hinter who had wandered into it was there slain, seemingly by a wild beast, the half-eaten remains being afterwards found by some mining prospectors ...only the night before.'"
Roosevelt than relates how Bauman and his partner setup camp, then went to set traps upstream, and when they returned found footprints, made by an animal that walked upright but wasn't human, amongst the wreckage of their camp. They thought nothing of it until later at midnight when something awoke Bauman. He smelled a "wild beast odor," grabbed his rifle and fired at a "threatening shadow" that then disappeared "into the impenetrable blackness of the forest and the night."
The next day after finishing their work and returning to camp, they found that it had been wrecked again. During a sleepless night by the fire taking turns guarding the site.
Page 154 from
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
"In the morning they dicided to pick up their traps and leave that afternoon. They worked together as before, until there were only three traps yet to be collected. The sun was high, the traps were only a couple of miles from camp and the men agreed that Bauman would gather them while the other went back to the lean-to to pack their gear.
"There were three beavers in the traps, and it took Bauman some time to prepare them. With considerable uneasiness he noted how low the sun was as he started for the campsite."'At last he came to the edge of the little glade where the camp lay, and shouted as he approached it, but got no answer. The camp fire had gone out, although the thin blue smoke was still curling upwards. Near it lay the packs, wrapped and arranged. At first Bauman could see nobody; nor did he receive an answer to his call. Stepping forward he again shouted, and as he did so his eye fell on the body of his friend, stretched beside a great fallen spruce. Rushing towards it the horrified trapper found that the body was still warm, but that the neck was broken, while there were four great fang marks in the throat... '"
"Although Roosevelt himself had no similar experience during his years in the West, he did not seem to dismiss the story as farfetched. (Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, pp.441-47)"
We are in the process of also acquiring "The Wilderness Hunter" so we can read Roosevelt's own words for ourselves.
The interesting thing about this account is that the violent nature it portrays is a good example that seems to be prevalent in older Sasquatch-like legends, stories and sightings.
Modern ones, not so much. Even when you consider the violence and resulting death, by way of an automobile, inflicted on someone pretending to be a Sasquatch, there still aren't a whole lot of modern age violent Sasquatch-like sightings reported.
Most of the reports are nonviolent in nature, and the question that comes to our mind is why? Is it because Sasquatch has retreated so far into the woods, that encounters with their home territory are rarer, and the only encounters are ones of lone Sasquatches far from their home territory.
This all may be because Sasquatch has decreased even further in numbers which is why their home territories has gotten not only smaller in size, but also in numbers.
All these maybes are just that, maybes, there is no real evidence to back any of them up. It's merely an interesting impression we get from what we're reading and watching.
Page 154 from
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
In 1902, near Chesterfield, Idaho, a hairy monster that stood up on two feet, carrying a club, terrified a group of skaters. The tracks left behind were measured at 22 inches long and 7 inches wide.
Page 20 from
Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena
On December 14, 1904, the Colonist reported a Bigfoot sighting on Vancouver Island by "four credible witnesses".
We are currently searching for the Colonist online. The closest we've come is the British Colonist, started in 1858 in British Columbia. Many people do refer to it as the Colonist.
As a matter of fact, while discussing an 1884 sighting above, refered to as the "Jacko Hoax"; the Daily Colonist itself, refers to itself as The Colonist within an article in a photo-scanned page three that the paper printed itself in 1884. Also, within the pages of the original source for these 1904 and 1907 reports, the Colonist is described as a Victoria, B.C. newspaper, which is exactly where the Daily Colonist has been printed from since 1858. The result is an almost inescapable conclusion that the Colonist and Daily Colonist are one and the same. We may be wrong, but at this point in the investigation, we'll move forward with the assumption they are one and the same, with the stipulation that at a later date we may change this assumption all together.
But until then, and with that specific assumption in mind, we searched the photo scanned reproduction of paper printed on December 14, 1904, line by line, page by page, even the advertisements and classifieds, and we couldn't find a thing even remotely relating in any kind of way to some kind of Sasquatch-like sighting. Nothing.
Check it out yourself:
http://europa.library.uvic.ca/colonist/display.php?issue=19041214 - ARCHIVED COPY [ +8M ]
THE FOLLOWING IS CURRENTLY BEING EDITED:
All we can do at the moment is wonder to which Colonist our sources are refering? The current state of our research indicates that there is no source for the above sighting, but we'll keep researching it as best as we can. Until then, this is the best information that we've got.
We were rereading this page, fixing and making it more coherent, when we got to the 1884 Jacko story above. The date of the story was actually two years before some of our sources reported it happening. I thought, hmmm and at the same time I could see the light go off in Dave's head too, when we got to this part. Could this same kind of thing have happened with this story? We're heading out right now to check this theory out.
Come and join us if you want, here's where we're at:
Page four, at the top,
"The Colonist. Sunday, December 14, 1902. Published by The Colonist Printing & Publishing Company... "
And at the very top of the same page,
"Victoria Daily Colonist, Sunday December 14 1902."
I myself don't see how this isn't the newspaper our sources are writing about when they mention the "Colonist". Dave just wants to find the article and read it. I kinda do too, now.
Anyway after a quick look, nothing. Although, we did find an interesting little article, on page ten, about the sad shape of the Sphinx in Egypt (remember, this is back in 1902):
"UMBRELLA FOR SPHINX.
"One of the Numerous Plans to save the Old Statue.
"For some time past travelers who have visited Egypt have reported that the sphinx, that silent sentinel of the desert, is crumbling to dust because of the climatic change wrought by the irrigation of the sandy wastes surrounding it. For thousands of years this great monument has withstood tempests and all other onslaughts of time, yet now it is surely beginning to decay, and unless prompt steps are taken to save it from destruction, it is very probable that it will within a few years be dethroned from the position it has occupied so proudly for centuries.
"The experts say that the terrible sandstorms during the last quarter of a century have gradually worn away portions of the rock which supports the sculptured figure, and it is only a question of time when the ruin will be complete. The sphinx itself will not suffer, however, for it is fashioned out of solid rock.
"A day or two after the doleful news reached France a few leading archeaologtists met for the purpose of devising some effective method of saving the sphinx, and after a long debate they decided that the best thing to do would be to erect a huge umbrella over the monument. They agreed that only in this way could the sphinx be protected against the destructive sandstorms which sweep periodically over the desert.
"A thorough investigation has shown that these storms were more than else are ruining the monument, and 'If can only be warded off,' says the archaeologists, 'there is no reason why the sphinx should not last until the end of the world.'
"If an umbrella is constructed for this purpose it will unquestionably be the largest in the world, for the recumbent man-headed lion which it is designed to protect is 108 feet and 9 1/2 inches in length. Such an umbrella would have to be fashioned out of a rock."
Anyway LONG STORY SHORT, even if we are at the right newspaper, it looks like it might take a while to find this report, story or article. We'll get back to you later on this one.
Page 20 from
Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena
In 1907, the Colonist also reported the abandonment of an Indian village. The villagers being scared away by a "monkey-like wild man".
Since, we aren't absolutely sure to which specific newspaper the Colonist our source refers, see our discussion of same in our 1940 sighting report above, and until we investigate further, we'll just leave the rest up for you to decide what is real and what isn't. We'd like to read the original source, but still it's hard to believe Jerome Clark, a respected researcher and author of the source in question, would make stuff up out of whole cloth.
What's interesting, and something we've noticed while doing research (I've only been doing this for five plus years while Dave has been doing this) for our website for almost the past twenty years, is that many documentaries, books, and websites don't always fully research what they present. They merely copy it straight from books or newspapers etc. without even reading or even looking at the original source. Dave admits doing this also when he wrote the original text and webpages for his original website (then known as AmyStrange.com), and his first attempt at an "This Day In History" kind of webpage about the Unexplained. He would read what was written about each event, sometimes using sources that weren't the original and actually one or more sources removed from it, and write a general rewrite using almost the same description, without also actually looking at the original source either.
It wasn't until we started doing more research on each event that this phenomenon really become even more noticeable, although when Dave first published his "This Day In History" (TDIH) calendar on the web, he was contacted about one of the events he posted and when he looked at the original newspaper sources found out that none of the sources he had used not only didn't agreed with each other, but also didn't agree with the original newspaper accounts either. Read more...
In short, researching each source rather than just posting events without at least, at some point, doing research to make sure all the original sources are accurately represented is always a good idea.
Page 36 from
Creatures of the Outer Edge
In the July 16, 1918 edition of the Seattle Times an article about "Mountain Devils" appears.
Page 154 from
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
Jeff Beck and friends
Harrowing experience in Ape Canyon
On the east side of Mount St. Helene
in Washington state
Pages 154-155 from
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
Taken prisoner by a family of Sasquatches
Pages 156-158 from
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
claimed to have kidnapped
by a band of Bigfeet
As he headed for Conuma River,
British Columbia, Canada
Pages 156-158 from
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
Bulldozer operator Jerry Crew
took a cast of one of many huge footprints
at a work site located in an isolated spot
in Northern (Bluff Creek) California
A claim has been put forth that these tracks are a hoax:
"The crew was overseen by Wilbur L. Wallace, brother of Raymond L. Wallace. After Ray Wallace's death, his children came forward with a pair of 16-inch (41 cm) wooden feet, which they said their father had used to fake the Bigfoot tracks in 1958.
We did a little more research and found the following obituary at:
"Birth: Apr. 21, 1918
"Death: Nov. 26, 2002
"Folk Personality, Writer, Outdoorsman. The man who created the 'Bigfoot' phenomenon. In 1958 with the help of his brother Wilbur he carved 16-inch feet-shaped shoes to make tracks. The tracks were then made by Ray and Wilbur who would wear these shoes on there feet and walk around. In 1958 a man working for a construction company in Humboldt County, California, found the footprints and reported them to the authorities setting of a wide world frenzy. The Humboldt Times called it the 'Bigfoot' phenomenon in a front-page story. From 1958 onwards there would be numerous sightings of 'Bigfoot' including video tape, pictures and eye-witness accounts, but to this day, nothing has been proven about his existence. Wallace died on November 26, 2002, at his home in Seattle, Washington, but his death wasn't realeased to the public until December 6, 2002."
Simply put, Ray Wallace's children said their father and his brother Wilbur, were the ones who faked the Sasquatch tracks found in Northern California in 1958, but since Ray Wallace died in 2002, he's not here to deny or confirm the story.
As a result, many people are using this as proof positive that the tracks found were a hoax and thus Sasquatch is a hoax by association. Most of the people who believe this don't believe Sasquatch exist, so you have to take their belief with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. It doesn't mean anything really, just as Dave's belief that it wasn't a hoax doesn't add or take away from the hoax claim either.
Myself, I believe it's possible Sasquatch does exist, and at the same time also believe it's possible the tracks found in 1958 were hoaxed, but that don't mean Sasquatch is a hoax by association. Now as far as the probabilities go, the only way to break the hoax log jam is to compare the casts, made from the tracks, with the wooden "16-inch feet-shaped shoes" mentioned above. Of course, that all depends upon whether any of the cast of the tracks still exist and whether the wooden shoes are still around with which to be compared. We'll have to do some more research in this area later to find out what's possible, or if maybe someone has done this already.
If the wooden shoes are unavailable, but the casts are available, a detailed analysis of them would tell if the original tracks were made with wooden shoes or not, depending of course on how good the tracks originally were when they were cast. The reasons for this are based on the impressions the tracks themselves left and also the distance between them.
The distance between tracks (steps), in an obvious walking pattern, is relatively important and it's pretty easy to understand why. First, let's call the distance between each step we take when we walk, the "distance of a stride". And then, for the sake of argument, let's say the average height of a human is six feet and the average height of a Sasquatch-like creature is eight feet. If you know enough about math that you know how to use the equations for triangles, and even if you don't, it should be obvious that the taller an upright, walking animal is, the larger the distance of their stride is. If it's not obvious, then just compare the stride of a human that is tall and one that is short. The distance of the stride of a tall human is usually longer (larger) than someone who is shorter, and the shorter they are, the larger the difference. Of course, anyone can take longer strides by either stretching their legs or by running or jumping, but this can sometimes be determined, if the impressions left behind are good enough, by examining the impressions left behind by the heel and toes as we walk upright, which brings us to the reason for examining she actual cast themselves to determine if they were more probably a result of a hoax rather than possibly being made by an actual Sasquatch-like creature.
Unfortunately as of this writing, we don't know whether any of the set of tracks found in 1958 were ever phographed, and if they were, if anything is nearby (like a ruler) to compare the distance between or size of the tracks. That's now another thing on our long list of things for which to look. As usual, we'll update this webpage as soon as we get the information.
Anyway, without any information to tell us the distance of the stride, which admittedly can be faked, the more important thing to examine anyway are the impressions left by the heel and toes as whomever or whatever walked. This examination can maybe determine if the distance of the stride was natural or not, and maybe even the weight of the animal that made it. We've never done any of this ourselves out in the the woods or anywhere else out in the field for that matter, but we have both conducted experiments walking barefoot outside in the dirt under different conditions and examined the resulting tracks. We checked them after we carried different weights, took unnaturally long strides, and also running and jumping. Unfortunately we don't have a camera as yet, but when we do, we'll put the documentation up for everyone to see, but until then you'll either have to take our word for it, or conduct your own experiments. If you do, and you have a camera, feel free to send us the resulting data if you want. Anything sent to the following e-addy won't be put up on our website unless you first give us your permission. With that in mind, you can contact us at:
Like we said earlier, the distance of the stride of an animal walking on two feet is one of the indicators of how tall an animal is, but what helps corroborate it, like we also said earlier, are the impressions left by the heel and toes, but before you study these two specifically, you should look at the track as a whole, looking for anomolies, especially in the arch area, and you should also keep in mind that the animal might also have been hoved or had claws, but until we put up a webpage dedicated solely to the subject of tracking, lets just stay away from those side streets for now, and presume the tracks we are analyzing were made by an animal with a bone structure that is generally similar to our own.
Before you can analyze a track (or cast), you have to know what to look for, and the best way to understand what exactly you're looking for is to understand what exactly your feet and the rest of your body are doing while you walk, and most of it concerns just keeping your balance. The following is merely an extremely simplified explanation and is only for the purpose of making you aware of what to look for while examining a track and not to be taken as gospel. You can and should confirm this by paying attention to what you're doing the next time you're walking, or watching someone else walk. I guess if you can neither walk or see, you'll just have to take our word for it and trust that we're telling the truth. All we can add is that we DO NOT take that trust lightly.
Anyway getting back to discussing the balancing act we perform as we walk, let's first look at what happens while you're taking that first step forward. Go ahead, take that first step if you can. You'll probably notice as you do, that you also lean your body forward, while at the same time shifting your body weight to the heel of the foot with which you are stepping. Go ahead and try taking a couple steps without doing this and see what happens. Allow me to end your suspense, you will fall over backwards.
If you haven't fallen over by your second step, it's mostly because as you are shifting your weight forward, you are also swinging your back leg forward to complete your first two full steps forward.
The important thing to remember about this is that, while you are swinging your back leg forward, all your weight is on the heel of your first foot. This happens everytime you take a step. The more something weighs, the deeper the heel prints will be. So, when the average human walks, considering our average weight is 200 pounds and, let's say for the sake of argument, when you compare that to the average weight of what a Sasquatch-like creature (some estimate that at 800 pounds) might be, it's obvious that the average Sasquatch would leave a way deeper heel print than the average human would.
Of course, this also all depends on the type of ground in which you find the tracks. Frozen ground doesn't yield as easily as say mud does, and the same can be said for rocky ground or a sidewalk versus sand, leaves, broken branches etc. All that has to be taken into consideration, but irregardless, the principle still applies, and if you ever get to examine a good track, you'll see for yourself that it does.
Assuming you have a good track to examine, you can also tell if someone jumped from track to track or stretched forward to give the impression of a longer stride, by examining the heel print.
Also what happens while you are taking that first step, especially if you're walking without shoes, the back foot (the one that stays behind as your other foot takes that first step) your toes dig into the dirt to help push your body forward, and to also use your toes to push off the ground just before you take that second step.
Now the problem with tracks left by someone who is walking with shoes, and even more so when those shoes are rigid pieces of wood, is that when the toes push off, the toes do more shoveling (pushing) than digging. With really good tracks, you can see quite plainly the individual toes digging into the dirt, while a shoe or wooden board tends to shovel as a whole rather than digging in individually toe by toe. When you try to stretch your steps (or jump) so it looks like you have a longer stride, your heel digs into the ground with the bottom of your feet more perpendicular (more of a right angle) to the gound then when you step naturally, and with a really good track (especially if the person leaving the track jumps), you can see quite clearly the heel landing and pushing the dirt forward like a shovel, and if you jump, the force of your landing increases your weight a little and at the very point where the heel first hits looks a little like a kind of landing skid as the dirt is pushed up and forward as it resist the force of your landing.
Another way to take longer strides is to run, but unfortunately as most fakers and hoaxers have probably already found out is that, when you run you tend to use your toes more than and instead of and your heel doesn't really touch the ground uless you jump and run, but you don't get as much distance as you would if you ran. If the tracks you are examing are made from someone running. This is one way a track can tell you if someone was running to make it look like they are taking long strides.
Maybe it'll be easier to understand if you see what happens you just drop a rock onto the ground as opposed to dropping it or throwing it at an angle. When you just drop the rock, all it's weight is focused on the bottom of the rock and that's where the impression is deepest; while when you drop or throw the rock at an angle, all the weight of the rock is focused on the front part and you can see this in the impression it leaves. All the dirt in the front of the rock is affected by the weight of the rock and there is way less movement of the dirt towards the rear of the rock. If you throw the rock with enough force and with just enough of an angle, the dirt will be very noticeably pushed forward in the front with a possible skid mark in the back.
Also one more thing needs to be mentioned using our rock analogy above, and that is to consider the impression that an even larger and heaver rock makes as it lands. The heavier the rock, the deeper the impression. If you study tracks with this in mind and are comparing two tracks, which ever track is deeper was made by the heavier animal, or an animal carrying more weight than the other track. If the heels are the same depth, chances are greater it was a human that made them rather than a Sasquatch, which many researchers think way more than humans, from as little as twice the average weight of a human (400 pounds), up to four times as much (800 pounds).
The same kind of analogy using a board rather than a rock to represent the toes, if you lay a board on the ground to represent your foot as it lay flat on the ground, then push the front of the board down to represent how the toes push off, you run across a small problem. Unless you carve out individual toes at the front of the board, all you will get for a track, if it's a good track, is an obvious straight-line impression where the individual toe marks would be.
And that's not the only problem you have to overcome, the part of the track between the toes and the heel, the arch, and the little pads of skin directly behind the toes (which don't tend to leave as much of an impression as the rest of the foot), would tend to be flat at the top rather then rounded where the foot pivots forward from heel to toe. There are actually three specific arches located at the bottom of our feet:
"The foot has three distinct arches. Two 'longitudinal' arches (one on each side) run from front to back; one 'transverse arch' runs across the midfoot from inside to outside.
"The 'medial longitudinal arch' is the most prominent foot arch and what is typically referred to as simply, 'the arch.' It runs from front to back along the inside of the foot. This arch absorbs the majority of the shock of impact while walking, jumping or running.
"The 'lateral longitudinal arch,' runs parallel to the medial longitudinal arch, but is along the outer edge of the foot...
[image at webpage above]
" ...shows how prominent this arch can be; it is most visible in people with very high arches.
"The final foot arch is called the 'transverse arch.' It runs across the midfoot from outside to inside. This arch also provides support and flexibility to the foot.
The medial longitudinal arch, mentioned in our source above, is the most prominent arch, and also takes the brunt of the shock created as we walk. And unless you are flat footed or very heavy, you will still see some of your footprint missing in that area. It's very to understand why the foot flattens out when you put weight on it. The foot is design is a lot like the leaf spring on most automobiles. Even if you don't know what those are, you've probably seen them and don't even know it. It's a flat sheet of metal longer than it's width, usually, let's say for example four unches wide and two feet long. The middle part is bowed up from the ground so it looks like a part of a circle. Depending on how thick and what kind of metal you use, if you step on the part that bows up away from the ground, it will absorb your weight by flattening itself out and the bow will be closer to the ground if not touching all together, laying flat instead of bowed. That's how the bones in your foot also absorb the weight of your body, standing still or walking, more so when you walk because as you walk one foot is absorbing all your weight as your other foot is off the ground moving to take that next step.
Anyway, all that means is that a shoe or flat board doesn't give the same impression as a barefoot. Unless you also carve it so it leaves the same impression as the arch of our feet partially flattened, the impression will tend to be flattened in the arch area rather than rounded, and if it's a good track will show all this. Unless you carve your wood shoes, with an understanding of the anatomy of the foot and what happens as you walk, the heel, arch, and toes leave very different impressions behind from a shoe or rigged piece of wood. First we would have to see the wooden shoes to see how they were carved, and then we'd have to see the tracks (cast) themselves to see if everything we mentioned above is evident or not.
So, until we do more research on this, and are able to compare the casts and shoes together, or the cast alone, or find if it's been done already; Dave will continue to believe it isn't a hoax, while I just think it's possible the tracks are a hoax, but that doesn't mean that proves they are a hoax.
Pages 21-22 from
Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena
Probably the closest anyone has ever gotten to capturing a live Sasquatch is the alleged unknown creature captured on the Patterson-Gimlin film which was taken on October 20, 1967, and is also one of the most controversial pieces of evidence around. Mostly because, if it isn't a fake or a hoax, what is that creature in the film? If it is a Sasquatch, then it challenges the idea that such a creature doesn't exist, and the only way to combat that is to prove the film was faked or hoaxed. To date, that hasn't been conclusively proven yet, one way or the other, although in my opinion, there is more in favor of it not being faked or a hoax, but more on that later.
Both me and Dave have watched the Petterson-Gimlin film more than once, and about the only thing we agree on is that it looks pretty convincing, except for what I think is an odd walking style, but people smarter than us that know all about bone and muscle structure have reported that, depending on the film speed, either 16 or 24 Feet Per Second (FPS), Patterson doesn't remember, at 16 FPS, their study revealed that a strong case could be made, to the point of almost proving beyond all doubt that the creature wasn't a man in a suit, but unfortunately when they played the film at 24 FPS, it looked more likely it could possibly be a human walking, except at high speed.
Now neither me nor Dave, don't remember this being mentioned before about the feet per second setting, until we read the detailed discussion about it in Jerome Clark's book, the Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena, but since Patterson doesn't remember what the FPS setting was, and he died before he ever remembered, and unless someone finds some kind of diary with the information, the film itself can't be proven a hoax.
I have to personally say that the fact that Patterson doesn't remember what the setting was at first glance, to me anyway, is suspicious, but in the same light, it is understandable considering the fact that in the film you can see the affects of what happens as he falls off his horse after it rears, seemingly from the sight of the creature. Even though it's suspicious, that alone doesn't prove or disprove it's a hoax.
The film itself is still considered one of the best pieces of evidence around in the search to prove the existence of Sasquatch.
There have been rumours that the suit was built at Disney or that the creature creator for the TV show, "Lost In Space". But to date, none of these have been conclusively proven, and no one has ever come forward to accept repsonsibility for making a suit, or for wearing it.
In conclusion, I have to say it certainly looks more like it could be real than not, but that's just my opinion, and doesn't make it fact. Dave out and out says it proves Bigfoot exist, but I wouldn't go that far, although it certainly is compelling evidence that can't just be explained away with "find the zipper" jokes.
The best discussion on the authenticity of film can be found here at Wikipedia:
The film speed is discussed and an actual mathematical case for the speed of the film being at 18 rather than 16 or 24 FPS is made.
This year, the highest quality audio of an alleged Sasquatch howl was recorded in Washington State. We've heard the audio, and I'm on the fence with it, but Dave swears that's what a Bigfoot sounds like. It sounds more like a wolf to me, or something similar, but that's me.
Some experts say it's not a wolf, that it's more ape like, but others disagree and say it is a wolf. I don't know enough about it to argue one way or the other. We haven't found much else about this evidence, but we're still looking.
In order to understand the importance of the evidence found by a Park Ranger in 1982, you need to understand just what dermal ridges are. The best example of them are your fingerprints. Those are considered dermal ridges. If you look close enough, you'll see them all over your hands and feet. Their distinctive and individual and very difficult to hoax, if not practically impossible.
11,000 BC - Humans cross the Bering Strait into North America 895 AD - Leif Erickson and his men recorded accounts of a Sasquatch-like monster 1492 - Christopher Columbus discovers the West Indies 1840 - Elkanah Walker, a Washington State missionary, writes a letter describing a race of giants that lived in the Mountains 1884 - A strange creature named "Jacko" is captured near the town of Yale, British Columbia 1893 - "The Wilderness Hunter" written by Theodore Roosevelt is published 1902 - A sighting near Chesterfield, Idaho of a hairy monster left tracks measuring 22 inches long and 7 inches wide. 1920-1930 - J.W. Burns coins the word "Sasquatch" 1958 - A work crew working in Northern California discover a whole mess of Sasquatch-like tracks 1967 OCT-20 [FRI] - Patterson and Gimlin capture a Sasquatch-like creature, walking upright, on film 1971 - The highest quality audio of a possible Sasquatch recorded by some campers in Washington State 1982 - A possible Sasquatch footprint showing dermal ridges is cast by a U.S. Forest Ranger 03.00
03.00 ADVANCED DEGREE 03.01 REVIEW
04.01a FEB-28-2013 16:55 PST[04.01a]: NOTES: FEB-28-2013 16:55 PST TOC
Since we're in the middle of working on our Sasquatch (AKA Bigfoot) webpage anyway, we decided this would be the perfect time to review the A&E Documentary called "Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot" hosted by Leonard Nimoy, and take some research notes. It also seemed like the perfect thing to put up on our blog, so there's almost an exact copy of our notes at both places, of course, we'll be putting it on our blog first. SOURCE: Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot Actors: Narrated By Leonard Nimoy DVD Release Date: April 26, 2005 Studio: A&E Home Video ASIN: B0007WFUFG We first started watching this documentary on February 28th, but didn't actually finish it until the next day. The details aren't important. Let's just say the watching was interrupted by a doer who wanted help getting something done, and leave it at that. It started off with a spooky kind of music that sounded like the wind, and then almost at the same time, a quote from a former President of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology, G.W. Gill, appeared:Then, a half dozen or so quick three second video blurbs, and finally Leonard Nimoy started his introduction, and the aura of mystery got thicker than pea soup AND peanut butter, it was a nice way to slide into the introduction. Dave loved it. He won't admit it, but he went bonkers over it. Almost like clockwork, every ten seconds "Whoa! Did you see that? That was sooo cool!" Or his other variant, the detailed explanations for what that particular three second video blurb was all about. I knew I would be hearing all this again later in the documentary, but rather than get annoyed, I turned it into a kind of game, keeping mental track of some of the facts he was using to bolster his explanations for each picture, then see if the documentary itself corroborated his memory. Suprisingly enough (well, maybe not that surprising, since after all, we had already both read a bunch of books about Sasquatch), he was mostly right on the money. Needless to say I think, he went quietly ballistic when Leonard Nimoy's voice came from out of the speakers. Myself, I think Leonard Nimoy has the coolest voice for this sort of thing, and yes I know who Spock is, but I don't go gaga over him like Dave does. It's funny really... and sometimes maybe even just a little bit creepy, but still endearing. ACT 1: ANCIENT DEVIL From the video captions:"Either the most complex hoax in the history of anthropology has continued for centuries without being exposed, or the most manlike and largest non-human primate on earth has managed to survive in parts of North America and remains undiscovered by modern science.""Zealous [sic]", from the last paragraph above, was probably caused by some kind of spoken word to caption translation gliche. We both think Leonard Nimoy was probably going for Salish, or Selis, Indian Tribes instead of Zealous. Long before the white man came (who incidently were also the ones who decided to lump all of the Native Americans together in the Pacific Northwest, including British Columbia, that spoke some form of the same language, the Salish language, and thus the term "Salish Peoples"), the Salish Peoples were the dominant tribes in the area. Among the legends: Giant Men of Mount Shasta Stick Men of the Washington Mountains Hoopa Valley Located in Klamath Mountains Northern California Sightings are common. Hupa Indians "Oh-Ma" "Boss of the Woods" Columbia River, Oregon Archeologist along the banks Mysterious Sasquatch-like carvings Human size with clearly a monkey or Ape-like face when did they ever get the chance to see a monkey or ape? Klickitat baskets weaved in are large figures maybe Sasquatch? In 1840, Elkanah Walker E. Walker, a missionary Spokane Indians Washington "Nine Years With The Spokane Indian The Diary, 1838-1848, of Elkanah Walker" by Clifford M. Drury In a Letter, Walker described race of giants lived in the mountains came down sometimes steal salmon eat them raw strong smell In 1884, near the town of Yale, British Columbia Strange creature captured some called, "A Young Bigfoot" nicknamed "Jacko" In 1893, "The Wilderness Hunter" In 1958, Bigfoot became a world-wide phenomenon that Summer, road crews Northern California whole mess of Bigfoot tracks In 1967... 10:22 (33:36) ACT II: Evidence 1967 PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM controversy surrounding it Some think it depends on hoe fast the film itself was filming Patterson can't remember 16 or 24 frames per second at 16, it moves very unlike a human at 24, it looks more like it's a human Disney said they didn't do it A "Lost in Space" TV series Special effects man is linked to it DR. GROVER KRANTZ Professor of Anthropology Washington State University World authority on Cryptozoology Bering Straits Land Bridge He believes Sasquatch might be descendants of Gigantopithecus Footprints Dermal Ridges average 7 fee, 8 inches 800 pounds If it is Gigantopithecus it might be a descendant of the Yeti in 1982, footprint showed highly detailed evidence of dermal ridges withstood forensic examination U.S. Forest Service Patrolman Some strands were found by Bigfoot hunters while on an expedition was analyzed by Dr. Sterling Burnell A Biologist from Berkley, California. belonged to an unknown species "It is clearly related to the human-chimpanzee-gorilla group, but is distinguishable from each of these." In 1971 The highest quality audio of what some people believe is from a Sasquatch like creature. recorded by a group of campers in Washington State PHOTOS Date: 1972 LOCATION: Waterfall Forks, WA. ANALYSIS: Hoax DATE: 1991 LOCATION: Mt. Ranier, WA ANALYSIS: Undetermined 18:28 (25:30) ACT III: CONTACT The Bigfoot Research Project SOURCE: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bioforum/1994-August/010160.html The project, conducted in association with the Academy of Applied Science, in Boston, MA [from "AMB": "Concord, New Hampshire"] is the most professional and sophisticated approach ever attempted on the subject and the only one of its kind in the Country. (USA) 5 year study detection contact communication all existing information from all the way back to the 17th century PETER BYRNE Former Game Hunter 10 year expedition in search of Yeti mountains of Nepal very involved in the Migration theory live in small groups complex social order with a throwing out the sons who become Rogue males looking for other groups to overthrow the dominate males of that group traveling from California and Canada and back The unanswered question is when and where exactly does this occur? At the time of the airing Byrne was collecting data from 400 sightings enter them into a database and see if there's a pattern 1961 Byrne: photo of a 14 1/2 inch footprint sorry but the photo they show looks like it could have been made by a wood shoe it's not a good photo really BUT it isn't anywhere near 16 inches long BLUFF CREEK Patterson-Gimlin Film 28:58 (15:00) ACT IV: SIGHTINGS in 1992, October 12 EXCLUSIVE VIDEO Daryl Owen and Scott Herriott Two Bigfoot Hunters we have studied this video a little closer and it does look like there's something there but it doesn't move I'll believe there's something there but not that it's Sasquatch Not enough evidence for that When you have to outline the knee and face on a photo with a marker and point out the toes and I still can't see it. Sorry. Dave finally admitted to me that he couldn't really see anything either but, he added, that doesn't mean there isn't anything there. I agree. Dave's starting to think like me. That's scary. WHY HASN'T A SASQUATCH BEEN FOUND? The following creatures Mountain Gorillas Pygmy Hippopatamus Snow Leopard Giant Panda all were considered myths until they were discovered by explorers COELOCANTH extinct 60 million years 1938 was the first recorded finding accepted by "real" science South African fisherman Nimoy: "First the Geography and vastness of the terrain being searched. Much of the Pacific Northwest is innaccesible and full of dense lumber" Peter Byrne: "The Pacific Northwest here, to give you an example of its size and ability to hide things has 73 aircraft lost from Northern California to Alaska since World War II. Lost, and thats an official FAA, Federal Aviation Administration figure, it's not just a myth, it's not just a newspaper story" How many dead bears have we found? According to Grover Kranz, "Probably, the most commonly asked question is, if the Sasquatch is real, why don't we find their bones? Well, if bears are real, why don't we find their bones? I've talked to many hunters, many game guides, conservation people uh, ecology students and everything and asked them for-- how many remains of dead bears have you found that died of natural death? Over my 20 years of inquiry, my grand total of naturally dead bears is zero. Now, with the best population estimates we can make, there's at least 100 bears out there for every one Bigfoot. And we haven't found the first bear yet. While we would very much like to find the remains of a naturally dead Sasquatch. The chance is just so remote as not to even seriously think about it." 37:30 (6:00) ACT V: LEGACY WILLOW CREEK the town that is called "The Gateway To Bigfoot Country" Willow Creek, California More sightings have been reported here than anywhere else in the world 1976 Bus stop just outside Willow Creek Jason and Jeff Ombi 18 inch long footprint Cast made by an aunt Debra Jones 3 1/2 inches in the ground Labor Day Weekend Bigfoot Daze celebration Starring in an episode Six Million Dollar Man In 1969, SKAMANIA COUNTY, Washington NIMOY: " ...following an outbreak of Sasquatch sightings and footprint discoveries, the Board of County Commissioners passed the world's first Sasquatch Protection Ordinance "Killing a Bigfoot in Skamania [Background IMAGE: Sign reading, 'BIG FOOT CROSSING NEXT MILE'] Carries a $10,000 fine and 5 years in prison."NIMOY: "All 50 states and all 10 Canadian Provinces have reported sightings or found tracks of this mysterious animal. Over the decades, these claims have been the root of many legends. In the dense timber of the Pacific Northwest, where the animal is most commonly recorded, these legends have been immortalized and virtually brought to life. This phantom creature has been known by many names: Hairy Ghost... Ancient Devil... Sasquatch... and more recently, Bigfoot." [...] NIMOY: "The oldest account of Bigfoot was recorded in 986 A.D. by Leif Erickson and his men. During their first landing in the new world, the Norsemen wrote about monsters that were horribly ugly, hairy, swarthy and with great, black eyes. "But the legend of Bigfoot existed in North America long before the white man arrived. The Zealous [sic] Indian Tribes of British Columbia called the creature Sasquatch', meaning, 'Wild Man of the Woods'."
Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot
Produced in 2005 by A&E Home Video
Bigfoot: The True Story of Apes in America
Copyright © 2003 by Loren Coleman
Creatures of the Outer Edge
Copyright © 1978 by Jerome Clark and Loren Coleman
Cryptozoology A to Z
Copyright © 1999 by Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark
Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena
Copyright © 1993 by Gale Research Inc.
Giants, Cannibals, & Monsters: Bigfoot in Native Culture
Copyright © 2008 by Kathy Moskowitz Strain
In Search of Sasquatch
Text Copyright © 2011 by Kelly Miner Halls
Michigan Dogman, The
Copyright © 2010 by Linda S. Godfrey
Copyright © 1969 by Ivan T. Sanderson
Mysteries of the Unexplained, Reader's Digest
Copyright © 1982 Reader's Digest Association
Mysterious America: The Revised Edition
Copyright © 2001 by Loren Coleman
Copyright © 2003 J. Robert Alley
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science
Copyright © 2006 by BooBam Ventures, Inc.
Silent Invasion: The Pennsylvania UFO-Bigfoot Casebook
Copyright ©2010 Stan Gordon
UFO: The Definitive Guide...
Copyright © 1994 by David Ritchie
The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization
The Bigfoot Forums
Bigfoot - Wikipedia
Foot Arches - About.com
Jacko Hoax - Wikipedia
Patterson-Gimlin Film - Wikipedia
Salish Peoples - Wikipedia
FREAKS OF NATURE
NATURE, FREAKS OF
WEREWOLVES: Are Werewolves Real?
WEREWOLVES: The Eclogues by Virgil
WEREWOLVES: The Epic of Gilgamesh
WEREWOLVES: The History of Herodotus by Herodotus
WEREWOLVES: The Real Wolfman - DVD Review
LAST UPDATED: May 19, 2013