Saturday, July 11, 2009

The Work of John Green

The Ape and the IM Index
From the book "The Best of Sasquatch-Bigfoot" by John Green
Used with permission

The first four chapters of this book deal with significant events in the Sasquatch/Bigfoot investigation in the twenty-first century, but the others are a reprinting, without updating, of two books, "On The Track of the Sasquatch" and "Encounters with Bigfoot," that in various versions have been continuously in print since 1968. Paradoxically, it is the fact that I wrote much of them so long ago that makes them uniquelt relevant in 2004. Although the story is actually much older, reports of outsize humanlike footprints and huge upright-walking animals first attracted attention in 1958 when a cast of a "Bigfoot" print was made and publicized, and became more widely known in 1967 when a man named Roger Patterson took a 16 mm movie purporting to show on of the creatures. In those days such reports made news, but in recent years new evidence for the existence of the Sasquatch is usually ignored by the media. Proof that a bipedal ape shares this continent with humanity is apparently considered so big a story that it can't possibly be true. The headlines now are reserved for stories of the opposite kind, claims of proof that the Bigfoot tracks and the movie were just fakes after all. Not many people were involved in investigations on site either in 1958 or in 1967, and only two people took part in both, the late Bob Titmus and myself. Bob never wrote of his experiences, so my books were the only equivalent of that courtroom staple, the investigator's notes made at the time. At the end of 2002 newspapers and TV networks all over the world had a field day with a yarn that all the footprints were faked by a man who had just died, so Bigfoot was also dead. Even though the story was obvious nonsense its effects will last a long time, stopping witnesses from risking ridicule by making their stories public, and discouraging scientists who might be considering getting involved in the investigation. That fiasco is dealt with in full in a later chapter. As for the movie, attempts to debunk it come along every year or so, usually contradicting each other. It became widely believed in Hollywood that the man who changed the faces of the actors in the "Planet of the Apes" movies also created the creature in the Bigfoot film. He apparently never denied it while he was working, but after he retired he told Sasquatch investigator Bobbie Short, on tape, "I was the best but I wasn't that good!" The prestigious Wildlife Unit of the BBC also took a hand in the debunking game. They succeeded in making themselves look foolish by showing a pitiful attempt at a re-creation of the Patterson movie with a man in an ape suit, and by claiming as proof of fakery a copy of a letter dated after the movie was made which indicated that Roger made money by selling rights to show it. Who wouldn't? Another wing of the BBC had been one of the earliest to ante up. Why anyone would argue that selling something of value proved that it wasn't genuine is hard ot understand. More recently, a book was published in which the author claimed to have found the man who wore the ape suit in the movie, and the man who sold the suit to Roger Patterson. In each case there was no evidence, just one person's story, and the two men described two totally different suits. The man who claimed to have worn the suit said Roger had made it by skinning a dead horse. It was in three pieces and it stunk. The man who claimed to have made the suit said it consisted of six pieces and was made of modern materials. Paradoxically, this silly attempt to prove that Patterson hoaxed his film led to the discovery that the movie itself has always contained proof that it does not show a man in a suit. One of the things that the supposed suit maker is quoted as saying is that the way to make the arms in the suit look longer than human arms is to extend the gloves of the suit on sticks. Many people have noted that the arms of the creature in the film look unusually long, almost as long as its legs. Some, including myself in 1968, have published estimates of their length. No one went on to deal with the question of how human arms could be extended to match the extra length and what such an extension would look like. There is no way to establish for certain if any of the dimensions estimated for the creature in the film are accurate, but what can be established with reasonable accuracy is the length of the creature's legs and arms in relation to one another. From that ratio it is simple to calculate how many inches must be added to the arms of a man of known size in order to make them long enough to fit in the supposed suit. In my own case the answer turned out to be about 10 inches. But in order for the arms to bend at the elbow, which they plainly do in the movie, all of that extra length has to be added to the lower arm. The result, in my case, is about 12 inches of arm above the elbow and 29 inches below it-an obvious monstrosity. The creature in the movie has normal-looking arms. It cannot be a man in a suit! Many issues in the long debate about the movie remain unresolved-what the film speed was, whether a man could duplicate the creature's unusual bent-kneed walk, whether its behavior was normal for an animal, whether the tracks left on the sandbar could have been faked, and so on-but all of them turn out to have been irrelevant to the main issue. My measurements of the film, made 36 years ago, gave the creature arms that were 30 inches from the shoulder to the wrist and legs that were 35 inches from the hip to the ground. My own measurements are about 24 inches from shoulder to wrist and 40 inches from hip to ground. Scientists studying primates use almost identical measurements, the only difference being that they measure to the ankle joint rather than the bottom of the foot, to establish what is called the intermembral index, which is one of the things used to distinguish one primate from another. Gorillas and chimpanzees, with arms longer than their legs, have average indices of 117 and 107 respectively. The average human IM index is around 70. Only the ratios of the measurements matter, actual size makes no difference. Establishing an accurate IM index for the creature in the film is difficult, since no one frame shows all of both the upper and lower limbs at right angles to the camera, but it can be done, in fact a computerized study of the creature's walk done for the TV documentary "Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science" has already done it. Using sophisticated forensic animation software to follow points on the creature's body and limbs as it moves through 116 frames of the movie, the computer was able to produce pictures of its skeleton showing an IM index between 85 and 90. Forensic animator Reuben Steindorf's comment after studying the film was that making it using a man in a suit would require a lot of mechanisms not available in the 1960s. It would have to have been a highly funded project and there would have to have been trailing electric cables attached to the creature somewhere. In short, it couldn't be a man in a suit. A study of a lesser number of frames by Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an anatomy professor at Idaho State University, produced a similar result, and he also noted that besides bending its elbows the figure in the film flexes both its wrists and it fingers, "all but ruling out the possibility that an artificial arm extension could be involved." It will no doubt take a while before the impact of the IM index makes itself felt among primatologists, but they can hardly ignore one of their own standard measurements when it tells them that there really is a giant higher primate to be found in North America.

The Bluff Creek Tracks
By John Green, from the Texas Bigfoot Report
March 1st, 2003

Maybe it's time for a history lesson before the last available witness, which I seem to be, passes on. The tracks that were observed in the Bluff Creek drainage in northern California in the 1950's are not just another set of tracks that can easily be set aside as something tainted by claims of fakery while other tracks are still presumed to be genuine. They are the base layer of the bedrock on which the whole investigation is founded. Their importance goes far beyond the fact that they started the process of bringing the subject to widespread public attention and saddled it with the ridicule-prone name of "Bigfoot." For all the books and websites and investigating organizations this subject has spawned and the huge public following it now has, it still involves only two facts that cannot be contested. One is that thousands of people claim to have encountered huge, hair-covered bipedal primates. The other is that something makes huge, humanlike footprints. Of all the reported encounters, in only one case is there a backing of solid photographic evidence. That evidence comes from Bluff Creek:
Far more tracks have been seen and cast and photographed at Bluff Creek than anywhere else.
Repeated observations of tracks of identifiable individuals have been documented at Bluff Creek far more than anywhere else.
The tracks at Bluff Creek have been investigated more thoroughly and by more people and over a longer period than anywhere else.
More top-quality casts and photographs of tracks have been made at Bluff Creek than anywhere else.
The tracks at Bluff Creek appeared at a time and place when and where there was no knowledge of anything to imitate, circumstances that can never occur again. The Bluff Creek tracks started the life-long quests of Bob Titmus, who found more solid evidence than anyone else, and Roger Patterson, who took the only good movie. Like most British Columbians, I grew up familiar with stories of Sasquatch giants and I had begun to investigate them seriously before Jerry Crew made his famous cast, but it was at Bluff Creek that I first saw that the huge tracks are real, and trying to establish what makes them is what I have been doing ever since. For those whose familiarity with this subject may not go back that far, a few facts: The big tracks started appearing overnight when a construction crew was building a road along the west side of the uninhabited Bluff Creek valley in the summer of 1958. They showed up every few days not just in the loose dirt on the road, but also digging deeply into the harder surface of the steep sidehill at places above the road and below it. After some weeks Jerry Crew, a bulldozer operator, got from a taxidermist friend, Bob Titmus, instructions and material to make a cast of one of the prints. A picture of Jerry holding the cast appeared in a newspaper in Eureka, and went out on the wire all over the continent. With it was a story in which the name "Bigfoot" was first published. On seeing the picture in a Canadian newspaper I immediately drove to Bluff Creek to investigate, saw a few old but impressive tracks, talked to Jerry Crew, Bob Titmus and other witnesses and inspected the terrain the tracks traversed, on and off the road. Those tracks were roughly 16 inches long and matched very closely a tracing I had of a cast of one of the tracks found at the scene of a Sasquatch sighting report in British Columbia in 1941. A few weeks later I got a letter from Bob Titmus saying that he and another man had found and cast distinctly different tracks, roughly 15 inches long, on a sandbar in the creek below where the road crew was working. I immediately returned to Bluff Creek and saw for myself that these new tracks were impressed about an inch deep in damp sand packed so hard that my own prints hardly marked it and that they were in a situation where the use of any sort of machinery to make them appeared to be impossible. It is carvings of those tracks, not the 16-inch "Bigfoot" tracks that a nephew of Ray Wallace has displayed in photographs. They are fitted with straps so they can be walked on like snowshoes, but like snowshoes there is no way that human weight could impress them deeply into hard material. In the next year and a half I was back at Bluff Creek several more times, spending about six weeks in all, and saw the 15" tracks in three more locations and also a third type of tracks, about 14" long, in another location east of Bluff Creek. I never saw the 16" track again at Bluff Creek but did see tracks that resembled it farther south at Hyampom in 1963. It was also reported seen frequently in 1963 and 1964 when logging was going on in the Bluff Creek valley, and Roger Patterson made a good cast of it there in 1964. The 15" tracks were also repeatedly seen, and were photographed and cast by a number of people in that period. Sometimes they were accompanied by tracks roughly 13", and Rene Dahinden and I saw those tracks together in three different places at Bluff Creek in 1967, in one instance being able to study hundreds of both tracks. Later in 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went to Bluff Creek, because of the tracks Rene and I had seen, and not only got a movie of the creature but watched it making tracks which they later cast. These tracks were also approximately 14". If it is the same as the 14" from years before then there are at least four distinct tracks that have been observed at Bluff Creek, if it is different then there are five. There is also a 12" track usually discounted because it is within human range. For all of these, while they remain recognizable as individuals, there is a considerable range of shapes, toe positions, length of stride, etc., conforming to slopes, obstacles and other influences. Those are the Bluff Creek tracks that I know about. Over the years there were, of course, far more that I didn't see; many other people who investigated them; hundreds who went just to see for themselves after being told about them, and some who reported coming on them far from any road when they were timber cruising or road locating. Ray Wallace is connected to all this in only two ways that have been established. The men who first reported the 16" tracks were his employees, and it was the Bluff Creek events that started him on his long career, mainly after he moved to Washington, of producing and trying to sell crudely-faked track casts and photographs and telling outrageous whoppers about his adventures with "Bigfoots." Ray wasn't around any of the times I went to Bluff Creek and I never met him, but I was told right from the beginning of his reputation as a practical joker and yarn spinner, the latter being was amply confirmed when he phoned me and wrote letters to me over the years. There were people in California, of course, who were sure the footprints had to be faked, and some of them fingered Ray Wallace as the person they "knew" had done it, but I have outlined the massive task that would have been involved, and no evidence was ever brought forward of any way that anyone could have done it.

The Bluff Creek Tracks Continued

A magazine publisher in the East, who may not even have known that Ray had moved away before most of the events took place, pronounced a few years ago that the people who investigated at Bluff Creek were blind fools and that Ray had faked all the tracks. He also proclaimed that Ray Wallace had told Roger Patterson just where to go to get his movie. He knew that because Ray wrote and told him so. By accident or design it was this man whose comments were sought by a Seattle reporter when Ray's son announced after his death that Ray had told the family he had done the deed. Maybe Ray did tell them that, but it was a claim he never made in public, so he never risked being called upon to prove that he could do it. And whether the fault lies with Ray or with the next generation, the photographs they displayed indicate members of the Wallace family today don't know what the original "Bigfoot" tracks looked like. It is that sort of "evidence" that started a media storm in which the story grew and twisted until the world was told that not just all of the footprints, but also the Patterson movie, were fakes produced by Ray Wallace. And it is on that basis that people, some of whom even claim to take this subject seriously and continue to accept far less well-tested evidence, are now using the term "the Wallace tracks." They aren't the Wallace tracks, they are the Bluff Creek tracks. Maybe I've lived too long. I don't yet have a grave to roll over in.

Recent Developments
From the book "The Best of Sasquatch-Bigfoot" by John Green
Used with permission

Since "On The Track of the Sasquatch" was last revised there have been huge changes in the overall picture. In the late 60s I was in touch with almost all of the few people who were investigating this subject, and all of us together probably knew of less than 100 sighting reports. After Roger Patterson's film caught public attention a lot more reports began to come to light, until I was recording about 100 sightings or footprint finds each year. Still we always suspected that the great majority of incidents never became generally known because most of the people involved did not know of anywhere to report then without being ridiculed. With the growth of the internet that situation has turned upside down. There are many websites where people are asked to submit such reports, anonymously if they choose. I don't know of anyone who tries to monitor all the sites, but Matt Moneymaker's Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization alone gets at least half a dozen reports a day. A lot of them are obviously from pranksters, and trying to sort out the less-obvious fakes from the genuine information is a major task, but what remains must be more than a thousand reports a year. For a dozen years I worked at getting all the information I had into a computer database and by the spring of 2001 I had worked all the way through my back files and had more than 4,000 entries, but by then it was also obvious that I could no longer keep up with the data that was available on line. The new reports have cleared up one anomaly. From the state of Colorado, with a sea of mountains and a hockey team that displays Bigfoot tracks on the shoulders of its uniforms, I did not record a really substantial report in 40 years. More recently many reports have surfaced there, several of them among the best from anywhere. There is a somewhat similar situation with reference to the province of Alberta, except that most of the new information comes not from the internet but from years of dedicated investigation by Tom Steenburg, author of "The Sasquatch in Alberta" and "Sasquatch: Bigfoot The Continuing Mystery." The most interesting thing about the flood of new information, however, is that the majority of the reports do not come from the traditional areas at all. There are far more reports from east of the Mississippi than there are from the west of the continental divide. I have done enough investigating to satisfy myself that the evidence from the Midwest, East and South is on a par with what I am familiar with in the West, but reports from those areas are not the subject of this book. The other huge change is in the attitude of some of the scientists. For many years Dr. Grover Krantz was the only physical anthropologist willing to gamble his career by publicly being a full participant in the Sasquatch investigation, and there were no zoologists involved at all. The small group that gathered for the first viewing after Roger Patterson got his remarkable movie in the fall of 1967 did not include anyone with scientific credentials. It was a different story in the fall of 2000 when the BFRO organized a group effort at a place called Skookum Meadows east of Mount St. Helens and brought back evidence perhaps equal in importance to the Patterson movie: a huge cast made where a large animal had left limb and heel prints in a mud patch. One of the three men who found the print was a zoologist, Dr. Leroy Fish, and among the five additional people assembled when the cast was being cleared of its coating of dirt I was the only one without a doctor's degree. The impression was found where the men had placed some fruit at night in the middle of a patch of soft mud surrounded by mud that had already dried hard. They were hoping to get footprints if a Sasquatch was attracted to the fruit. When they returned a few hours later the fruit had indeed been disturbed, but instead of footprints what they found was a set of large, shallow depressions showing hair patterns, and a variety of holes were identified as elk and coyote tracks, others were a puzzle. It took a while for the men to come to the conclusion that a Sasquatch had sat down at the edge of the soft mud, leaving the impressions of slightly more than half its buttocks and one thigh plus several prints where it had moved its heel around, and had leaned over onto a forearm as it reached across with the other arm towards the fruit. Successfully casting all of such a large impression would normally have been out of the question, but one of the three men, Rick Noll, was a professional cast maker as well as a long time Sasquatch investigator, and had with him a couple of hundred pounds of exceptionally strong plaster. Using aluminum tent poles for bracing, they made what became know as the "Skookum cast," preserving all the evidence except some apparent scratch marks near the fruit. As with the original impression in the mud, the significance of the cast is not obvious at first glance, except for the humanlike heel shapes sticking up from it. Plainly something large and hair-covered had set itself down in the mud, but there are elk in the area and elk tracks in the cast. Careful examination, however rules out all the common animals. Certainly no part of an elk could match the obvious Achilles tendon of the best heel print. Professor Jeff Meldrum from Idaho State University, a physical anthropologist whose special study is the evolution of bipedal walking, took on the job of cleaning up the cast. He spent several days meticulously picking away the dirt adhering to it and in the process collected a lot of pieces of animal hair, but only a very few of them proved to be interesting. The most important thing he was able to do was to determine the location of the joints in the thigh and forearm impressions, which showed the bones to be half again as long as those of a six-foot man. Besides Dr. Meldrum, I am in close touch with two other scientists who are publicly committed to the Sasquatch investigation, zoologists Dr. John Bindernagel and Dr. Henner Fahrenbach. Dr. Bindernagel, with 30 years field experience in many parts of the world, set out to determine if what Sasquatch witnesses reported added up to a believable animal. He found that it did. Further, as noted in his book "North America's Great Ape, the Sasquatch," he learned that some seemingly unlikely behaviors the witnesses described are shared with one or other of the known great apes. Significantly, some of those shared behaviors turned up in Sasquatch reports before they were observed by scientists studying the other apes. Dr. Fahrenbach did a statistical analysis of the footprint dimensions in my computer database and found that when plotted on a graph they form the normal bell curve that would be expected of a species of real animals. He has also specialized in the study of hair, and has found a number of suspected Sasquatch hairs from widely divided locations that don't match hairs from known animals but do match each other. Unfortunately the hairs have so far failed to provide suitable material for DNA identification. Jeff Meldrum had earlier laid to rest a concern felt by some laymen like myself that someday an expert in foot anatomy would demonstrate that supposed Sasquatch tracks showing long toes and those showing short toes could not both be genuine.

Recent Developments continued

Instead, after examining all the track casts and photos he could locate, he determined that not only were the tracks consistent anatomically, they also showed an ability to bend in the middle that human feet (and one-piece wooden feet) do not have. Better yet, he found that the tracks dictated a style of walking different from that of humans, but exactly like that of the creature in the Patterson movie. He has also continued the investigation initiated by Grover Krantz of fingerprint-like skin ridges found on a few footprint casts made in particularly fine material at widely-separated locations. Skin ridges of this sort do not occur on the feet of animals other than primates. They might be considered a non-slip surface for tree-climbers that have no claws. This work recently caught the attention of a police fingerprint expert from Texas, Jimmy Chilcutt, who had made a study of such "dermatoglyphics" on the feet of humans and apes. Thinking he could prove that the footprint casts were faked, he examined them, found that they showed the same unique pattern, and pronounced that they were proof of the existence in North America of an unknown great ape. Also on the scientific front, and ironically at the same time that the media were going ape over the yarn that Bigfoot had died with Ray Wallace, a really important story was published in one newspaper, broadcast one one cable network and totally ignored by everyone else. That story was about prominent figures in zoology and anthropology who are now saying that the Sasquatch evidence deserves serious study. On January 5, 2003, the Denver Post devoted several pages, including half the front page, to stories by Theo Stein, their environment writer, in which he quoted a series of primate experts giving thei stamp of approval:
"As far as I am concerned the existence of hominids of this sort is a very real possibility."-Dr. Jane Goodall, world famous for her studies of chimpanzees
"There have been so many sightings over the years. Even if you throw out 95 percent of them, there ought to be some explanation for the rest. The same goes for some of these tracks."-Dr. George Schaller, director of science for the Wildlife Conservation Society and first scientist to do a major study of wild mountain gorillas
"I think a serious scientific enquiry is definitely warranted:"-Dr. Esteban Sarmiento, primate specialist at the American Museum of Natural History
"I'm not one to pooh-pooh the potential that these large apes may exist:"-Dr. Russel Mittermeier, president of Conservation International and chairman of the Primate Specialist Group
"It's not conclusive, but it's consistent with what you'd expect to see if a giant biped sat down in the mud:"-Dr. Daris Swindler, author of "An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy," commenting on the back of a heel and part of the Achilles tendon shown in the Skookum cast
Unlike the Ray Wallace story, this one was not picked up by the Associated Press and no word of it reached readers of other newspapers.

Also in January 2003, the U.S. Discovery Channel aired a one-hour documentary produced by Doug Hajicek of White Wolf Entertainment and titled "Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science." The show included footage of all the people mentioned except Drs. Goodall and Mittermeier. It also called on the expertise of specialists in animation to study the gait of the creature in the Patterson movie, which they determined did indeed have a very non-human way of walking. It was also noted to have a bump that rose and fell on its right thigh which appeared to indicate a type of hernia sometimes suffered by human sprinters.

In the documentary Dr. Swindler went well beyond the statement quoted in the Denver Post, saying: "In my opinion the impression is not made by a deer, a bear or an elk nor was it made artificially. The Skookum body cast is that of an unknown hominoid primate." Like the Post story the documentary was not mentioned by other media, but unlike the story it will continue to be shown on television and is available in other forms.

On Tne Scent Of The Sasquatch
By John Green

It is common knowledge that Sasquatches are reported to have a strong and unpleasant smell-in Florida they are commonly called "skunk apes." It is probably also well known, at least to the readers of newsletters, that strong smells are not always reported; but ia this just because the witnesses were not in a position to smell anything, or because Sasquatches do not always smell bad? To contribute some information for anyone interested in this question, here are the results of an analysis of reports from the western part of North America that I have entered in my computer. In 923 descriptions of supposed Sasquatches, only 72 mention a strong smell. Nine mention a mild smell and eight state specifically that the animals had no smell. Strong smells were mentioned in less than eight percent of reports. This percentage is fairly consistent throughout the American states, percentages being: Washington, 9%; Oregon,11%; California, 8%; and the average for eight other western states, 8.5%. The percentage in Canada is lower. In British Columbia and Alberta strong smells are mentioned in only 4.5% of reports. The number of descriptions involved, 217, would appear to be large enough so that the different percentage may have some significance, but it is hard to imagine what it could be. Absence of a report of a strong smell obviously has no significance if the witness was a good distance away or was inside a building or vehicle. Restricting the survey to reports where it would seem that the witness should have noticed a strong smell if one was present gives the following results.
In contact with the animal: strong smell 5, mild 0, no smell, 5.
Less than 5 feet away, in same air: 0, *2, 3.
Estimated 5 feet away: " " " 4, 1, 4.
Estimated 10 feet away: " " " 5, 1, 14.

Up to 5 feet the percentage of strong smells, in 24 reports, is 37.5%. At 10 feet, in 20 reports, the percentage drops to 25%.
With some animals strong smells are associated only with the adult males. Most Sasquatch reports do not involve any identification of sex, but it is usually assumed that most are males. My files contain only one report in which a Sasquatch is identified as a female and said to have a strong smell.
*A single report, that of Albert Ostman, has a disproportionate effect on the statistics. He claims to have been carried home by an adult male and then to have been close to a young male and a young female. In conversation, although not in his written account, he said that the adult male had a strong smell, the two juveniles mild smells. If his account is left out the number of reports of mild smells drops to seven, and the percentage of strong smells reported in British Columbia drops to 4%.

Witness Activities
By John Green

Prominent figures in any debate as to whether Sasquatch exist are the hunters/trappers/prospectors/etc. who have spent a lifetime in the woods without seeing one of evidence of one. It is a fact that most people involved in these activities do not report having seen anything, but it is also a fact that some do, and that their reports represent a significant proportion of the total. In the 1,340 Western reports in my computer, 1,301 activities by witnesses are identified. Of these 139 were not accidental, in that the witnesses had gone looking for what they had found because someone else, whose activity is not identified, had seen something before them, or, in few cases, because they were specifically "Sasquatch hunting." Of the remaining 1,162 activities, more than 10 percent, 125 witnesses, were hunting; 34 were logging; 23 were prospecting; 10 were trapping, and another 77 were involved in various outdoor occupations. Altogether these account for almost a quarter of all reports. When it comes to finding tracks this group plays an even larger role, accounting for 38 percent of track reports. Their information is significant, also, in that they are more likely than the average witness to have considerable familiarity with wildlife (by a ratio of 17 to 10), and to have made their observation under good conditions of lighting, time and distance (43% compared to 25%). Hunters rank second only to hikers in finding tracks (30 to 36), and to people in cars in reporting sightings (95 to 209). Other commom activities for people reporting sightings include: at home, 85; outside on foot, 72; camping, 65; walking, 61; hiking, 48; fishing, 38; working outdoors, 33; on boats, 26 (plus 14 fishing from boats); logging, 18; prospecting, 17; inside a building, 17; on horseback, 16; flying, 12; on a motorcycle, 11, and playing outside, 9. Obviously there are a lot of different ways these categories can be combined, for instance everyone travelling by motor vehicle, 271, including snowmobiling (9) and on a train (4); or everyone travelling on foot, 182, including jogging (1). There are significant overlaps. People fishing from boats are automatically in two categories, and most hunters, for instance, would be either on foot or in a vehicle. For some reports both categories are specified, but for most only one. Something else to take into account is the number of people who are engaged in each activity. Nowadays many more people travel in vehicles than on foot, and the number of potential witnesses in buildings must be much greater than the number in vehicles. Perhaps statisticians can determine whether or not these figures relate appropriately to what could be expected in encounters with a real animal. I don't have that expertise, but the relationships do seem reasonable to me.
John Green, December 1995

White Bigfoots
By John Green

I have 1,660 Sasquatch sighting reports in the computer in which a color was mentioned. The number of white ones is 77, or 4.63%, or one out of 22. There is an east-west difference. Only 28 white in 846 western reports, 3.31%; 49 in 814 eastern reports, 6.02%. The database doesn't contain any information specific to albinism. I can not recall even one description of a white Sasquatch, or any Sasquatch with either pink or light blue eyes, but the eye color is seldom seen. There is no correlation between northern latitude and the percentage of white Sasquatches. You can't split the data along lines of latitude across the continent because the area involved in the west is considerably farther north than that in the east, but in each case there is a higher percentage of white reports in the southern section than in the northern. In the east, white reports south of the 39'th parallel are 6.45%. North of the 41'st parallel the are 6.3%. In the west white reports are 5.03% south of the 44'th parallel and only 3.6% north of the 46'th parallel. With regard to time of year, the results are curious, maybe even significant. The percentage of white reports in winter is approximately double the percentage in summer, in both sections of the continent. In the east white reports are 13.97% of all reports in winter, 6.08% in summer. In the west white reports are 7% in winter and 3.34% in summer. It should be kept in mind, however, that winter reports are rare, so the numbers ivolved are very small, just 13 white out of 93 reports in the east and 7 out of 100 in the west.

Does Sasquatch Migrate?
By John Green

There has always been speculation that Sasquatches might migrate with the seasons, so it might be possible to establish that they would be passing certain points at certain times of the year. I have looked for evidence of this in my computer entries in three different ways:
Relationship of altitude to the time of the year.
Relationship of direction of travel to the time of year.
Relationship of location to the time of year.
None of these has shown any consistent pattern that would indicate migration. Average altitude of incidents is highest in the summer, which is probably normal for most animals, but it is lowest not in the winter but in the spring, and the difference is less than 400 feet. Since human observers also would tend to be at higher altitudes in warmer weather there is probably no significance in these figures. Direction of travel could be expected to be the most promising indicator, since a migratory pattern would surely be south prior to winter weather, and north when winter is over. Alternatively, near the coast, there could be a movement west in the fall and east in the spring. Unfortunately I have only 126 track reports and 82 sighting reports in which direction of travel is indicated. Even making some of these do double duty (counting "northwest", for instance, as both north and west) the numbers are small. There are 14 northbound reports in spring compared to 9 southbound, which looks a bit promising, but in fall there are 27 northbound and only 20 southbound. In fact 54% of the directions noted were northbound, and if that were statisticially valid all Sasquatches would eventually end up in the Arctic Ocean. The only season when a majority headed south was summer, 25 southbound, 19 northbound. East-west results were similar, with 54% headed west, and the greatest imbalance, 21 west to 13 east, coming in the spring when migration theory would have suggested travel in the opposite direction. Looking at location, there is a complete jumble, with the distances involved probably too small to mean anything even if they were consistent. Perhaps the results could be summed up by noting that if the average latitude and longitude is worked out for reports in each of the four seasons, the locations for all four come within a circle just 30 miles in diameter, which, incidentally, is in Oregon just southeast of Portland. For altitude and direction of travel the study used all the reports containing the relevant information, but for location only reports from British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and the northern half of California were used. Methods used were amateur in the extreme, since I have only rudimentary abilities both statistical analysis and use of the computer, but I am confident that they would have been adequate to show evidence of migratory behavior if there were any.

Elapsed Time Of Reported Sasquatch Sightings
By John Green

I am indebted to Henner Fahrenbach for the suggestion that the estimated time that a Sasquatch sighting is reported to have lasted might depend on some characteristic of the witness. He raised the possibility that Sasquatches might be attracted to human females and wondered whether observations by females would tend to last longer. A study of 899 sightings reports in my computer came up with the opposite result. For those sightings in which a time was estimated the average for males was 4 minutes, 37 seconds, while the average for females was only 2 minutes, 3 seconds. The difference was obviously enough to be significant, but significant of what? A possible answer is suggested by the fact that the reason a Sasquatch was present does not directly affect the elapsed time of the sighting, nor does it matter how long the Sasquatch was hanging around before it was seen. The clock doesn't start until the witness sees the Sasquatch, and it stops when either the creature or the witness leaves the scene. It might well be that sightings by men lasted longer because men were more likely to stand their ground and continue the observation. A check of sightings when the witness included both men and women gave a figure for elapsed time very close to that for sightings by males, an average of exactly 4 minutes. That opened up a whole new line of questioning, however, since such a sighting automatically has at least two witnesses, while most reports involve only one. Might the time also depend on the number of witnesses? That speculation proved to be a productive one. Sightings by lone males averaged 3 minutes, 18 seconds. Sightings by two men averaged 4 minutes, 12 seconds. Sightings by more than two men averaged 9 minutes, 51 seconds. Reports by more than one women were too few to be significant. Less than 30 percent of sighting reports contain time estimates in figures. Another 60 percent note only that the time was "brief" or "considerable." The trend here is not so marked, but it is the same. The percentage of sightings described as "brief" was 56% for females, and 45% for males. For single males the figure was 50%, for two male witnesses 42%, and for more than two males 32%. People who dismiss Sasquatch sighting reports as lies, mistakes or hallucinations are not noted for giving the matter much thought, but perhaps they should spend a little time on this question: If they are all imaginary what reason would there be for the time estimates to differ according to the sex of the witness or according to the number of witnesses?
John Green
P.S. In another publication Peter Byrne stated that Sasquatches do not look directly at people, and gave the Patterson movie as an example. This is just nonsense. I have 219 reports in which the witness stated that the Sasquatch was watching them, and the one in the movie turns and looks directly at Patterson, who was so intimidated by the look that he never took another step towards it.

Average Heights
By John Green

I have 1,695 reports on file in which a height in feet is estimated. The average height is 7.41 feet. In the West the average is 7.53 feet and in the East the average is 7.30 feet. Height estimates exceed 10 feet for only 33 individuals, which is just 2 percent of reports. It is assumed that individuals with estimated heights of less than 6 feet are not adults, then average adult height becomes 7.64 feet overall, 7.77 feet in the West and 7.51 feet in the East. There are only 35 reports in which a Sasquatch is identified as a female, only 2 percent of reports. Average female height is 6.94 feet overall, 7.00 feet in the West and 6.83 feet in the East.

Bigfoot Did Not Die
From the book "The Best Of Sasquatch-Bigfoot" by John Green
Used with permission

After the death of a man named Ray Wallace in December, 2002, surviving family members told the reporter who wrote his obituary that "Bigfoot" had also died. Ray Wallace, they said, was Bigfoot. He, not a huge, unknown animal, had made the big tracks that were first reported in 1958 on and around a dirt road his company was pushing through the Bluff Creek valley in the northwest corner of California. Family members agreed that they had always known about it and that Ray did it as a joke on his employees, walking around wearing a huge pair of carved wooden feet. For proof one of them showed a photographer just such a pair of carved feet, with strap harness attached. The story was nonsense on the face of it, since everyone who had looked into the subject knew that huge bipedal tracks had been reported from all over North America starting long before Ray Wallace was born. No matter, apparently it was just the sort of tall tale many editors were waiting to see and eager to tell. They were so sure the whole Bigfoot phenomenon had to result from fakery that they rushed into print and on the air proclaiming to the world over and over again that the whole Bigfoot thing was just one man's hoax. Of more than 50 papers that spread the story, and even more radio and TV stations, not one bothered to check its accuracy. Apparently none of them realized what the tracks in question were actually like, and they had no interest in finding out. Had even one of them bothered to learn all that was involved and then asked the Wallaces to show that they could duplicate it all walking around wearing the wooden feet, it would have killed the story they were having so much fun with. I am not saying it can be proved that those tracks were not faked, or that Ray Wallace could not have been involved, but proving that many of the tracks could not possibly have been made in the way the Wallaces described would have been easy. As the tale spread it got even more nonsensical. The Wallaces had said, as just about every Sasquatch inverstigator already knew, that Ray had made fake Bigfoot photos and movies, featuring his wife wearing a fur costume. But they also said that Ray had nothing to do with the famous Bigfoot movie taken by Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek in 1967. The media firestorm. however, eventually made Mrs. Wallace the subject of the Patterson movie, with Ray as the cameraman. One story also had Ray sending younger members of the family as far away as British Columbia equipped with other carved wooden feet, to make all the big footprints ever seen everywhere. And to give an aura of authenticity many of the stories called it a "deathbed confession," although the obituary made no suggestion of any such thing. It was clearly presented as something his survivors had long believed but not as a dying claim by Ray himself. That was strange enough, but what was stranger still, the media became so caught up in shouting that the Bigfoot hoax had been exposed that they would not allow any other voice to be heard. In two months not one newspaper would so much as have a reporter talk to someone, namely me, who told them that he had investigated the original incidents back in 1958, and had ample proof that Ray Wallace and the wooden feet could not have been responsible. To give readers a sample of what kind of story teller Ray Wallace was, here, in part, is a message that I e-mailed to many of the newspapers that had printed the story: "So Ray Wallace supposedly told his family that he created "Bigfoot" by walking around in California with a pair of huge carved wooden feet, and his family supposedly believed him. And the media has now told the whole world that "Bigfoot" was just Ray Wallace. Alright, but shouldn't the world also know what Ray Wallace has said of some of his other achievements?"
"Bigfoot used to be very tame, as I have seen him almost every morning on the way to work. I would sit in my pickup and toss apples out of the window to him. He never did catch an apple but he sure tried. Then as he ate the apples I would have my movie camera clipping off more footage of him. I have talked to several movie companies about selling my movies whichi would last for three hours. The best offer I've had so far is $250,000."
-Ray Wallace letter to the Klam-ity Kourier, Oct. 1, 1969
"Please send me your correct address. I want to send you a picture of one of the male Mt. St. Helens apes that the loggers took this spring as they were feeding apples to an old pair of BFs and the female was carrying a baby, but she never came close enough for them to get a good picture, they got some close up pictures of this 9 foot tall male, I just borrowed the negatives. I want to send all of the BF researchers a picture."
-Ray Wallace letter to John Green, Dec. 2, 1984. (I sent the address but haven't seen any pictures-nor has anyone else!)
No editor anywhere printed that information, so I tried a different approach pointing out by e-mail and in some cases also by phone that the claims made in the obituary were a far more successful hoax that any that Ray Wallace had ever carried out while he was alive, and outlining the items of physical evidence available to prove that the story was nonsense. No newspaper would discuss that either. Demonstrations were put on for both CNN and FOX News in which their own people, walking on fiberglass copies of genuine 15" tracks, learned that deep tracks can't be made in firm sand that way, even, in the case of CNN, by two men weighing a combined 440 pounds. The TV people who actually tried it and photographed it were quickly convinced, but in each case when the brief news segments were broadcast that was not mentioned and the Sasquatch researchers were ridiculed for refusing to recognize the reality of the Wallace claims. Finally, in an attempt to reach the public with an account of the true situation, the museum at Willow Creek, California, which has on display casts of many of the tracks involved, offered $100,000 for the first person who could demonstrate how humans could have faked them. That story was sent to 800 editors but except for a few local papers that were approached directly the media ignored it completely. There was nothing new about such an offer except the amount. A $1000 challenge had been issued on TV back in 1958, with no successful takers. I have had a $5,000 offer in print for the past 25 years, with no one even enquiring. The fact is that in the 45 years since the original "Bigfoot" story broke, no one has ever been able to demonstrate how the tracks could have been faked. Where does Ray Wallace fit in? The men who saw the tracks were employed by his company, but he was seldom there. He was based at Willow Creek, a couple of hours from the Bluff Creek project, but his friend Ed Schillinger recalls that he was usually away somewhere trying to drum up future contracts.

Bigfoot Did Not Die, Continued

Ray did have quite a reputation as a practical joker. Speculation that he had a hand (or foot) in making the tracks surfaced early on, and was by no means ignored, but on investigation was dismissed as being impossible and silly. The problem was to figure out how anyone could have made the tracks, something that hasn't been done to this day. Ray himself issued outraged denials, insisting, as was only common sense, that monstrous footprints showing up on his worksite were disrupting the job and costing him money. Some time later he apparently developed a yen to share the attention Bigfoot had stirred up and began to spin his outrageous yarns. Later still, probably after he had moved back to his old home in Washington State, he began making and selling obviously fake casts. I used to see them at a lodge on Mount St. Helens which also sold my books. One thing that he never did, at least in public, was to claim that he had made the Bluff Creek tracks. Had he done so he would, of course, have been called on to prove he could do it. What about the wooden feet that the current generation of Wallaces have displayed? So far there is nothing to show when in the last 45 years they were made or by whom, and none of them match the shape of the original "Bigfoot." The best pair does match the 15-inch track found later in 1958 on a sandbar in the creek and cast by Bob Titmus. They are somewhat crudely carved, and presumably they were made in imitation of those casts. For them to be accepted as the originals with which the tracks were made someone would have to demonstrate how they could make imprints an inch deep in hard-packed sand and make deep, rounded toe impressions with their shallow, square-carved toes. Were those or any of the other fake feet the Wallaces have shown ever used to make tracks that anyone accepted as genuine? It is certainly possible. This could have been done in soft mud, dirt or sand. Trying to match deep tracks in firm materials by wearing big wooden feet, however, is like trying to do it wearing snowshoes. People who do know some of the problems involved and yet would like to believe that the tracks were faked have come up with some really far-out suggestions: the depth was achieved with false feet mounted on tractor tracks; heavy concrete feet were hauled up and down with logging cables to make tracks on the steep slopes; the long strides were made by hanging onto the back of a moving truck; Ray Wallace faked the tracks of a monster because he wanted to get out of his contract so he was trying to scare his men into abandoning the job. The media obviously believe that possession of big fake feet that can be worn is proof that the owner has used them to perpetrate a hoax, but most of the people I know who have made them, including myself, had the opposite idea. They were made to find out what could be done with them and what could not, and what fake footprints made with rigid, carved feet would look like. And did Ray really tell his family that he had faked all the tracks? I had a reason not to question their claim that he did. I was once present when another notorious yarn spinner told his children and grandchildren an equally outrageous tale. I am told, however, that later his son admitted that Ray had never actually said it, they just assumed it. As to his claim that he told Roger Patterson where to go get his movie, a description he included in a letter to another researcher made it clear that Ray did not even know where that place was or what it looked like.

$1,00,000,00 Reward
From the book "The Best Of Sasquatch-Bigfoot" by John Green
Used with permission

Here is the text of the Willow Creek museum offer:
$100,000,00 for BIGFOOT TRACKS.
One hundred thousand dollars is being offered by the Willow Creek China Flat Museum for anyone who can demonstrate how the "Bigfoot" tracks that were observed in the Bluff Creek valley in northern California in 1958 and later could have been made by a human or humans. This offer is genuine. It is not a joke or a publicity stunt. The money has been arranged for, and the first person or group who can meet the conditions of the offer will receive it. Everyone should understand, however, that the conditions are not easy. The offer is a direct result of recent publicity which has created a perception that the Bluff Creek tracks were just a hoax carried out by a practical joker walking around wearing a large pair of carved wooden feet, but it is not meant as a challenge to the people who originated that story, who may well be perfectly sincere. The offer also is not a prize for technological achievement, such as being the first to build an effective footprint-stamping machine. It relates entirely to the question of whether the real tracks which brought the "Bigfoot" phenomenon to public attention could have been made by humans under the real conditions of the times and the places in which they appeared. The museum has casts of some of the tracks concerned, a few of them copies but mainly originals, available for inspection. It also has some related photographs, and published accounts of what was done and observed in connection with the tracks. There are also people still available for consultation who studied the tracks when they were made. A formal document setting out the requirements to qualify for the award will take time to prepare, but a successful applicant will have to be able to make flat-footed, humanlike tracks with more than twice the area of human feet and longer-than-human strides which do the following:
Traverse a variety of terrains, including climbing, descending and crossing steep slopes covered with underbrush; show variations of shape and toe position and stride accomodating to the terrain; sink into firm ground to far greater depth than human footprints specifically as much as an inch deep in hard sand where human prints barely penetrate at all; leave hard objects in the ground, such as stones, sticking up above the rest of the track. The applicant will also have to be able to make these tracks under the following conditions, although not all in combination:
In the dark, hundreds in a single night; in places where it is impossible to bring any vehicle or other machine or any equipment except what humans or animals could carry; without doing anything to attract the notice of people a few hundred yards away.
The reason that full specifications could not be included in the announcement was that the museum hoped publicity about the offer would lead to contact with the former roadbuilders and others who had seen tracks in the 50s. They were needed because it appeared that aside from myself everyone who had gone there to investigate the tracks in 1958 and 1959 had since died. As the chapters in this book titled "Bigfoot at Bluff Creek" and "Blue Creek Mountain" will explain, I had seen a great deal of a 15-inch, differently-shaped track that was found in the fall of 1958, but little of the original 16-inch tracks on the road project. Some record of what the tracks were all about is available in the newspaper files of the day:
Willow Creek-Bigfoot has been a familiar character to this part of the world off and on over a period of years.-Eureka, California, Humboldt Times, Oct. 7, 1958
In soft places the prints were deep, suggesting a great weight.-Jerry Crew, Humboldt Times, Oct. 5, 1958
He described the tracks as being pretty heavy. Quoting Julian Paulus regarding big tracks seen on a road job near Korbel in the spring of 1958.-Humboldt Times, Oct. 5. 1958
The footprint looks human but it is 16 inches long, seven inches wide, and the great weight of the creature that made it sank the print two inches into the dirt. Crew says an ordinary foot will penetrate the dirt only half an inch.-Associated Press story from Eureka, Oct. 6, 1958.
Judging from the deep indentation of the tracks he must be somewhere between 400 and 500 pounds. He must be quite an agile fellow leaping logs at a single bound and tracking throughout the wilderness covering a large territory quickly.-Edward Van Schillnger, stake setter on the Bluff Creek Road project, Humboldt Times, Oct. 8, 1958.
The first actual line of tracks definitely jolted me. On the hard ground where Philip Ammons' number 12's made a very light imprint, the track of Bigfoot sunk a half, to three quarters of an inch in depth. Twenty clear deep footprints marched along the side of the traveled portion on the road. Eighteen more were seen at intervals where the trucks had not run over them. We followed them down the road for some distance and found them down the road in both hard and soft earth. Bigfoot's tracks are in perfect proportion to what one would expect in their stride of sometimes 60 inches, 52 inches or the one short step over a small mound of dirt which was 40 inches. Even the depth to which the track had been pressed into the ground was in keeping with their size.-Willow Creek correspondent Betty Allen, in the Humboldt Times, Oct. 9, 1958

$100,000,00 Reward Continued

We though he might weigh as much as 400 pounds. He made firm footprint in the hard ground. Measuring
the footprints for a distance of more than 60 feet we found the average stride to be 50 inches. We checked this against the stride of a man 6 feet 4 inches tall, with long legs and his stride was 30 inches. We were told by people who saw footprints made when this unknown man was running that they were 10 feet apart. He does his traveling at night. We learned these tracks have been appearing for the past 10 years. -Seattle taxidermist Al Corbett quoted in the Humboldt Times, Oct. 1958.
They say (the source of authority who isn't sure but talking) that the tracks are made by spacing carved feet a certain distance apart on the threads of a tractor, or on a roller used to smooth the road. Is that possible? Individual measurements show some tracks to be sixty inches apart, some fifty-two inches and others 40 inches apart. Here and there, they show on one side and the other, sometimes as a small mound of dirt. Sometimes the tracks step easily up or down rough terrain. It is not necessarily in the path of a roller. In other places the tracks are within inches of the edge of the road in others in varying distances from the oiler rig or trucks. The ground may be that which tractors have run over. Sometimes the surface is perfectly smooth. The weight of the entire foot varies in depth, and according to the surface on which Bigfoot has been walking. It doesn't respond to the "mechanical" explanation. The case of the wooden feet that "they say" are in existence if true they must be magnificent models of workmanship. each toe is separate, tiny lines of the human foot are visible. Then one asks if the toes are hinged to give the startling realism of action observed in the big tracks there are those who answer with a "yes." On Thursday morning the latest evidence debunks a lot of "mechanical" claims. That morning, the big tracks of Bigfoot were observed plunging down the side of a hill in the roughest of shale. The huge dug in (sic), the weight caused the feet to slide. What a way to treat someone's carefully developed mechanical handiwork? There is $1,000 (over $10,000 in today's money) which could go to the fund for the badly needed hospital project of the Community Health Association at Hoopa in the "wooden feet" could be located, proven to be wearable, to produce Bigfoot's tracks. So far, the quest for them has been as fruitless as Coronado's search for the famed "Seven Cities of Cibola."-Betty Allen, Willow Creek correspondent, in the Humboldt Times, Oct. 31, 1958
Crossed the creek and there on the other side were the huge prints going upstream however he seemed to have been just snooping around when the tracks were made up and down banks, in and out of the timber and underbrush, down the creek and back, over huge boulders, logs and piles of debris. They measured 15"x6 1/2"x4 1/2". His print in this hard, damp sand was "to 1" deep where my print beside his was 1/8" deep.-Taxidermist Bob Titmus writing to John Green, Nov. 7, 1958.
Dr. R. Maurice Tripp, geologist and geophysicist, has a cast of a footprint 17 inches long he made in the Bluff Creek area. Dr. Tripp's engineering studies of the soil properties and depth of the foot print of which he made a cast show the weight of the owner of the print to be more than 800 pounds.-San Jose News, 1958 or 1959.

What Is the Sasquatch?
By John Green, from the paper of the same name,
from the book
Manlike Monsters On Trial

Based on a study of more than 1,000 reported sightings of manlike monsters, this article presents a statistical survey of the characteristics of the beings seen and of conditions under which they were sighted. The author notes similarities between these sightings and those contained in Russian studies. He concludes by making inferences from the sightings concerning the nature and distribution of the creature.
Whether a real creature is responsible for the many eyewitness reports of giant hairy bipeds in North America has not been established, and that may remain the case for many years. It can surely be assumed, however, that if such a creature does exist, then a substantial proportion of the reports involve genuine observations of it, and from them, if they prove consistent, an accurate picture of it can be drawn. It is my contention, based on the study of approximately one thousand such reports, that a consistent picture does exist and that it is not the one which is usually presented to the public. The reports portray not a semi-human, but an upright ape; not an endangered remnant of a species, but an extremely widespread and secure population; not a fearful monster, but a remarkably inoffensive animal. If all the old and new information that has been assembled refers only to imaginary beings, then there should be no limit to the attributes with which those imaginary beings might be endowed by their creators. They could describe animals, or men, or something in between, or they could picture something or a variety of somethings entirely different. In that case anyone taking an interest in the subject is free to make of the Sasquatch whatever he chooses. There are no limitations. But suppose that there actually is a living creature involved. If that should be the case, then it can surely be assumed that most of the stories of encounters with such a creature have a factual rather than an imaginary basis and that the information contained in the stories does in fact describe the creature. It follows that if we are in fact compiling information about a real creature then we cannot make of it whatever might suit our own fancies. It has to be the creature that the witnesses describe. We are dealing with reports of something that walks upright like a human but is entirely covered with hair and is usually much larger than a human. I have no way of knowing how many reports about such creatures there may be, but from North America alone I have more than a thousand on file, plus several hundred more concerning footprints of a suitable size and shape for the animal described. With such a volume of reports, even allowing for the fact that an unknown number of them are manufactured or mistaken, some validity must be assumed for those attributes and actions that are frequently described, and consideration should also be given to those that are not described at all. There should be enough information to tell us not only what the creature is, but also what it is not. The following is a digest of some of the significant points that I have been able to glean from careful study of the reports:
1. Sasquatches are significantly larger than humans, and not only in height. Small hairy bipeds are reported fairly frequently, but only nine percent of the reports involve creatures described as being smaller than men, while seventy-four percent involve creatures larger than man-sized. Since the standard of comparison is the largest type of human, the adult male, it seems reasonable to assume that all Sasquatches are consistently taller than humans of comparable age and sex. The average of all the height estimates is more than seven and a half feet. In California and Oregon the averages exceed eight feet, and nowhere are they significantly less than seven feet. Perhaps more significant is the heavy build described. Compared to an average man, fifty-seven percent are described as "very heavy" and thirty-four percent as "heavy," with only six percent "medium" and three percent "slim." Viewed from the front, seventy-eight percent are described as "wide" compared to an average human, and sixty-eight percent are described as "wide" from the side view also.
2. They are solitary creatures. Only five percent of reports involve more than one individual, and only one percent involve more than two individuals.
3. Their hairiness is of the animal, not the human. Only eight percent of observers thought the hair was longer on the head than elsewhere on the animal, and descriptions of long head hair or of bodies only partially covered with hair do not constitute even one percent.
4. The proportions of their limbs are more humanlike than apelike. Compared to a human and in relation to the general build, leg length is noted as "medium" in fifty-five percent of descriptions and arm length as "medium" in fifty percent.
5. From the shoulders up there is less resemblance to the average human. Shoulders are termed "wide" in more than ninety percent of descriptions. Seventy percent of necks are "short" and twenty-five percent have "no neck." Flat faces, large flat noses, sloped foreheads, and brow ridges are noted in nearly all descriptions resulting from close observation.

What Is the Sasquatch? continued

6. They are omnivorous. Gordon Strasenburgh describes such animals as herbivorous, but that cannot be supported. Of sixty-four reports that I had by 1977 mentioning things apparently taken or carried for food, exactly half involved some form of meat.
7. They are largely nocturnal. In spite of the fact that there are far more human observers around in the daytime and that humans see very poorly at night, almost half of the sightings reported have been at night. The time when tracks were made is not generally known, but when it has been almost ninety percent have been made at night.
8. They are not active in cold weather. Everywhere except in Florida there are only half as many reports in winter as in summer or fall, and tracks are rarely found in snow. Less than nine percent of the reports, including tracks and sightings, mention snow. Oddly, there are also few reports in spring, and consistenly less tin May than in April. At my most recent count, out of 804 sighting and track reports for which a specific month was known only thirty-nine were in May, compared to fifty-three in April and fifty-six in June. There were forty-two in each of February and March. Leaving out the Florida reports there were thirty-six in February, thirty-seven in March and and thirty-seven in May.
9. Sasquatches make considerable use of water. I have six reports of tracks ending in bodies of deep water, five reports of Sasquatches swimming, and a dozen of them standing or walking in bodies of water. In one survey I did of 289 track reports, eighty-three were beside water. Of twenty-eight reports located near towns in four states east of the continental divide, seventy-one percent of the towns were right beside a stream or lake large enough to be shown on an ordinary road map. A sample consisting of all the towns in two counties chosen at random in each of those states indicated that on the average only fifty-one percent of towns were beside water.
Almost all of the foregoing observations involve substantial numbers of reports, although the numbers vary from several hundred down to a few dozen. The one exception concerns details of the face and head, which are based on as few as a dozen observations. There are in addition a number of significant observations that have been reported only a few times:
1. The only time Sasquatches have been reported sleeping they were in the open, although it was snowing and there were trees close by.
2. I have sic reports of running Sasquatches being clocked by people in cars. Speeds reported were thirty-five, forty-five, fifty to sixty, seventy, and eighty miles per hour. None of these reports were from west of the continental divide, and I have not talked to any of the informants.
3. I have six reports of Sasquatches shaking or hitting vehicles, five of them jumping on vehicles, and five of them pushing at or damaging buildings.
4. I have eight reports of Sasquatches seen to throw things at people, without hitting anyone, and seventeen of them chasing people, without catching anyone. Five people have reported being rushed in what appeared to be a bluffing action. Reports of Sasquatches looking in the windows of houses and even vehicles are fairly common, but it is far more usual for a Sasquatch encountering a human to leave, often hurriedly.
5. Three people have reported being grabbed at while in their vehicles, and four have reported being picked up and dropped, but none have been much hurt. All reports of people being killed by Sasquatches, of which I have seven, have been very indirect or very old, usually both. There are perhaps a dozen reports of Sasquatches being seen to kill animals, but I have never been able to talk to any eyewitnesses.
6. Reports specifically identifying females and young are very rare. I have only nine substantial and specific descriptions of females and only three of young animals seen with adults.
7. One observer has reported two incidents in which it seemed that a Sasquatch did not have an opposable thumb, or at least did not use it in that way. I have no specific report of a Sasquatch using the thumb in opposition.
There are also a number of things about Sasquatches that seem to me to be significant because they have not been reported:
1. I have no report of a Sasquatch throwing anything overhand or in a straight line.
2. Although the creatures have been reported making sounds in almost nine percent of sightings I have only one report of anything that could be considered a possible form of speech. By far the most common sounds are screams.
3. I have no report of a Sasquatch using fire.
4. I have no report of a Sasquatch using any object as a tool and only a very few and indirect reports of one carrying anything that could not be considered food.
5. I have no report of a Sasquatch having a home, even in a cave.
6. Although I have talked to people who say they have shot at Sasquatches I have no concrete evidence that anyone has ever killed one, and I have no reports indicating that they have learned to fear guns.

What Is the Sasquatch? continued

Those are the observations that I wish to make based on my own research. In addition, there is a colleciton of Russian observations published by the late Professor Boris Porshnev. He notes the following points:
Height five to six feet, but with great variations; bodies covered entirely with hair; neck appears very short with head right on top of trunk; teeth like a man's but larger; bridge of the nose usually flat; thumb less opposed than a man's, objects often grasped between fingers and palm; toes and fingers have nails, not claws; creatures capable of running as fast as horses and of swimming swift currents; breeding pairs remain together, but males range over wider territory; no permanent homes; they do not make tools, but can throw stones; both meat and vegetables eaten; they are active mainly at twilight or at night; in northern regions they sleep during the winter; they avoid leaving tracks by walking on hard ground; towards man they are not usually aggressive.
I do not think that anyone could fail to note that except for the size of the creatures there are not many points of difference between the reports studied by Professor Porshnev in Russia and and those that I have been summarizing, while on the other hand there is exact agreement on many specific points. It should be noted, however, that the difference in size alone puts the two creatures in very different relationships to their environment. The Russian creatures are literally man-sized. There is no mention that they are any bulkier than men, and they are no taller. A six-foot man of substantial build weighs about two hundred pounds. An eight-foot creature of proportions one-and-a-half times as large would weigh about one thousand pounds, and a nine-foot one would weigh fifteen hundred pounds. I have given the information from my own files in order to draw conclusions from it about the nature of the animal described. The Russian information, even though it may refer to a different species, will generally support the same conclusions:
1. The Sasquatch is not normally a dangerous animal. It has the size and appearance of a monster, and it might frighten to death a person with a weak heart, but there is nothing in its record to suggest a species that preys on humans or tends to attack them for any reason. In fact if those people who tell of being grabbed or picked up are telling the truth it is a creature that makes very restrained use of its strength in its infrequent contact with humans. Iti s not uncommon, however, for humans to disappear in wild areas and never be found, so one might bear in mind the possibility that a lone human attacked by a Sasquatch might not be able to return to tell the story.
2. The relationship between the Sasquatch and Homo sapiens has not been proven to be any closer than that between our species and the other great apes, except in shared posture and means of locomotion. The physical attributes that we do share will make the Sasquatch a very important animal in man's quest for knowledge about himself, but it is not likely a "missing link" in his evolution or a "near human." With the exception of his upright posture and loss of hair, man's difference from other primates are mainly in his brain, and those differences obviously result from a radical departure, a very long time ago, from the normal primate lifestyles. While all other species have relied on physical abilities and on instincts to hold a place in a competitive world, man has shifted his reliance to his brain. Millions of years ago he learned to use objects to increase the effectiveness of his muscles, and from that developed the making of tools and weapons for specific purposes. He also relied on the co-operative effort of many individuals, and somewhere along the line he learned to increase greatly the effectiveness of that co-operation through verbal communication of ideas. The precise manipulation of objects with his hands and of sounds with his throat and tongue, repeated through countless generations, have been the keys to the development of his tremendous brain. At the same time he has ceased to rely primarily on physical strength, with the result that pound for pound he has only a fraction of the muscular strength of his primate relatives. The creature described in the Sasquatch reports has obviously taken an opposite route, although by no means the same one as the other apes. Unlike them it has learned to swim, to see in the dark, and to survive in a wide variety of climates. As a result of its greater versatility it has become a highly successful species, able to establish itself, if all the reports refer to a single species, all over the world. In that respect it is like man, but unlike him its adaptations have been entirely physical. It does not need or appear to desire the company of its fellows, so it would obviously never have needed to develop sophisticated vocal communication, and there is no indication that it has done so. Its size and strength have plainly proved to be sufficient both for protection and for obtaining food without reliance on tools or weapons, and it has never even learned to throw things effectively. Hard though it may be to accept, there are reports indicating that it has developed speed of foot sufficient to flee or to catch almost any other animal. Certainly it has never lost its fur coat and is able to get along in cold weather without either clothing or fire. There is simply nothing in its lifestyle that would ever have put pressure on it to develop its brain, and it obviously has not done so. Some suggestions have been made that its elusiveness in relation to man is proof of intelligence, but in fact Sasquatches are reported seen quite frequently, almost certainly more often than cougars would be if they could not be hunted with dogs. In short, if upright posture is what makes an animal a human, then the reports describe a human, but if it is his brain that distinguishes Homo sapiens from his animal relatives, then the Sasquatch is an animal-an upright ape-and nothing more.

What Is the Sasquatch? continued

3. The Sasquatch is not an endangered species in most of its range. On the mountainous western slope of the continent there are many hundreds of thousands of square miles of suitable habitat for it in which pressure from animals is minimal. In fact there is far more territory available for the Sasquatches than there is for the humans, and the volume of reports from every area where there are humans to do the reporting indicates that virtually all that territory is occupied. East of the mountains there is a wide area of level, open country that the Sasquatch apparently does not occupy, but there is nothing to suggest that it ever did. In the vast area drained by the Mississippi and its eastern tributaries as well as along the east coast there is presumably a great deal less forested area suitable for Sasquatches than was once the case, but there are plenty of reports to indicate an established population throught out the area. There is room for disagreement as to how many animals would be required to occupy all of that territory, but considering that the number of grizzly bears, which require large territories and occupy a much smaller area, is always estimated in multiples of ten thousand, the Sasquatch population must surely number at least in the thousands. It would appear that the "skunk apes" in Florida may be endangered by the destruction of their habitat to provide land for housing, and there may be other specific areas where populations of Sasquatches are threatened, but if man does threaten Sasquatches in any way it is obviously the land developer who is responsible, not the hunter. There ius no record of man ever successfully hunting a single one.


Bigfoot Wanted Dead Or Alive
By Michael Dennett
From Omni Magazine, May 1991

If Bigfoot actually does exist, he may be in grave danger. The peril: A number of Bigfoot researchers, who now say that they must supply their critics with positive proof of the animal if their claims are to be believed. "It is important that we collect a specimen," says Daniel Perez, an active Bigfoot buff and member of the International Society of Cryptozoology, also known as the ISC. ISC member Mark Francis agrees. Speaking to a group at the society's annual conference, in fact, Francis called on fellow members to go out and shoot a Bigfoot for the cause. Perhaps the most outspoken advocate for the acquisition of physical proof is Washington State University anthropologist Grover Krantz. According to Krantz, "If top scientists at places like the Smithsonian Institution" are to accept the existence of Bigfoot, then killing a creature is an absolute must. Even game officials, says Krantz, have said, "Go out and shoot me one, and then I will believe that your stupid animal is real." Of course, not all students of Bigfoot think that one of the elusive critters should be killed. Bigfoot devotee Paul Freeman, fot instance, advocates the use of a camera, instead of a gun. "These creatures don't bother anybody," Freeman says, "so why harm one of them?"

Wanted Dead Or Alive
By John Betts
From Fortean Times Magazine, January 1997

We still don't know for sure that the elusive North American Bigfoot exists, writes Janet Bord, co-author of Bigfoot Casebook (1982), but if it is ever proved, the implications are startling. To those who believe in its reality, Bigfoot (a.k.a. Sasquatch) is a hairy man-beast, 7-9 ft (2.102.7 m) tall, possibly a kind of Gigantopithecus survival. To the disbelievers, all sighting reports are lies or misidentifications and all photographs are hoaxes. In the event, reports and photographs are just anecdotal evidence and only an independent scientific examination of an actual Bigfoot is going to settle the matter. Close encounters between the creature and armed men are rare and it has, to date, proved difficult to track and kill. The opinion also exists that Bigfoot ought to be left in peace, for if its existence were proved, its isolated life would be disrupted forever. There are well over 1,000 recorded sightings of Bigfoot going back nearly 200 years. It has been seen in all parts of the North American continent, but mainly in the Pacific Northwest: in British Columbia, Oregon, Washington State and California. Sightings continue to be reported to day, but photographs and other tangible evidence are rare.
The most convincing and convenient proof of Bigfoot's existence would be the discovery of a carcass-but that's not likely. Any wildlife remains are rare finds in the North American forest where scavenging creatures can reduce something as substantial as a dead moose to just toenails, teeth and antlers in a few days. And after a week even those tail-ends are usually gnawed away. The only dead wildlife that most people see are fresh victims of collisions with vehicles. So far, Bigfoot has avoided becoming a roadkill. You are more likely to get a glimpse of Bigfoot in your rear-view mirror than in your headlights. Bigfoot researchers say that drivers consistently report rear-view sightings-usually of something large hunched down at the roadside, rising to cross the road after the vehicle passes. The evidence suggests that Bigfoot is canny enough to stay out of traffic as well as avoiding definitive proof of its evidence. The simple solution to some is to shoot the illusive beast. Dr. Grover Krantz, professor of anthropology at washington State University, author of Big Footprints and renowned cryptozoologist, advocates a hunt to track and kill a Bigfoot. He believes it's the only way to remove any doubt about the thing's existence. Inevitably, his position has drawn opprobrium from other Bigfoot searchers and researchers. "I think it's wrong. It would be criminal and totally unnecessary," objects Peter Byrne, a former big game hunter, author of The Search For Bigfoot and head of The Bigfoot Research Project based near Mount Hood in Oregon. "I think shooting a Bigfoot is something proposed by people who are desperate to get one of these things." Worse, says Byrne, Bigfoot might already be an endangered species. His own research team has not found any likely footprints in years. Byrne figures that, even if there are only a handful of the beasts around, they should be leaving thousands of prints: "I have no idea how many Bigfoots there are, but there are not very many; otherwise there would be more evidence on the ground." In Byrne's view, killing a Bigfoot would be tragic: "As one schoolboy said to me: 'Suppose it's the last one?'" Krantz, however, doesn't believe Bigfoot is at risk and, if it is, it might need to be shot. Not to shoot one, he suggests, might only ensure its demise. "If it's really endangered, which I doubt, then it makes taking a specimen all the more important, because whatever is causing Bigfoot to become extinct is continuing," he says. "The government is going to pay no attention and do nothing to help unless you prove the animal exists. The only way to prove Bigfoot exists is to bring in a specimen. So the more endangered they are the more critical it is to get that one specimen." However, Krantz believes the evidence suggests that numbers are on the rise, particularly in the Eastern United States where forested land is coming back. Notwithstanding the debate about whether Bigfoot is endangered, Byrne thinks he has a better idea for proving the animal's existence. Funded by the Academy of Applied Science in Boston-previously known for its support of Robert Rines' attempts to track the Loch Ness monster on film and sonar in 1976-Byrne's Bigfoot Project resources include stand-by helicopters, infra-red search devices, remote motion detectors, police-trained tracking teams, computer mapping, video cameras and, lately, biopsy darts. With these darts, fired from a gun, Byrne says he can get all he needs from Bigfoot by way of a tissue sample: "After that the creature walks away." Byrne admits that tissue samples and Bigfoot DNA are a far cry from a whole animal. Nevertheless, he insists that being able to prove, technically, that there is something ape-like, and hitherto unrecognised in the woods "would be a giant step forward." Byrne said his mission would then be complete and he would step back to allow the scientists to begin their research. Krantz is sceptical. First, he doubts whether Byrne's trackers could get close enough to dart a Bigfoot. Second, he doubts whether any Bigfoot hunter could take a back seat and let other take over the investigation. "You have to understand why people are taking a stand against shooting a Bigfoot," says Krantz. "They know that once a specimen is brought in, the scientists will take over and the hunters are going to be shoved aside. They want to keep the mystery alive so they've something going for them." At the same time, Krantz says, the possible wealth and notoriety for the person who proves Bigfoot's existence provides a temptation few could resist. "A lot of these people going around trumpeting how wrong it is to shoot one fully intend to if they can," he added cynically. Meanwhile, after four years of research at the Bigfoot Project, Byrne says that computer analyses of sightings are beginning to reveal patterns of movements. "It's quite exciting," says Byrne adding, probably not for the first time, "we could have something tomorrow." In Big Footprints, Krantz proposed a military-style campaign with a team of hunters to bag a Bigfoot. "If some rich person wants to famous or infamous for backing the bringing in of a Sasquatch and picks me to organise it, I would work on it," he says, "but no one has come up with the money yet."

Sasquatch Summer
By Clyde Lewis
From Unknown Magazine, Winter 2000

It is the summer of Sasquatch. With over 19 alleged sightings during the year of 2000, it is time to demand that Bigfoot need not be associated with Elvis sightings and weird theories that sound like rejected plots from the "Six Million Dollar Man." Yeti, Momo, Skunk Ape, Almas, Yowie, Sasquatch, Bigfoot, whatever the name you call it, is making its presence known throughout the Northwest. Mystery Anthropoids, or Hominoid ape like creatures that roam the forests of the world have been down played by scientists and are usually treated as tall tales concocted by drunk hunters who mistake large bears for a more strange albeit odorous being that may or may not belong on this planet. People take for granted that all species have been identified and so the idea of a great ape species living in North America is an absurdity until the "body of evidence" is exposed to the world. Even if it was exposed, the reality of such a creature could be as mundane as an endangered ape or gorilla that somehow found a way to cross continents and remain elusive from hunters and investigators, only to show up unexpectedly and witnessed by deep woods campers. The whole idea of new and mysterious species being discovered and categorized is academic to serious researchers who realize that even in recent history animals that were once thought of as products of mythology have suddenly appeared and have been categorized by scientists. Now that the proof of their existence can be caged up and put on display in a public zoo or laboratory it is common place. The difficulty in capturing an undeniable picture, video, or even hair or scat samples of the Bigfoot has caused a number of people to dismiss outright the possibility of such a creature existing. However eyewitness testimony continues to pour in and recently the sightings of such a creature have increased. Native American Indian tribes have talked about these creatures for centuries. White settlers have recorded their presence as well and the stories have continued throughout history. Even Teddy Roosevelt claimed to have seen one. It wasn't until the 1970's when interest was sparked by several documentaries that were produced about the creature and where a grainy 16 mm film was showcased purporting absolute evidence of what appears to be a Female Sasquatch walking into the forest. This famous piece of footage in known as the Patterson Gimlin film. Reports began coming in from all over the country about sightings of a creature that was between 6 1/2 to 8 feet tall, hirsute with large feet, glowing eyes and producing a horrible smell of sulfur or rotten eggs. The combination of glowing eyes and terrible smell were similar to other crypto creatures that had been reported in other parts of the country, namely the Flatwoods monster, the Skunk Ape, Mothman and most recently the Chupacabra of Puerto Rico. There have been researchers who claim that the smell is similar to human body odor. It has also been said that the odor is like a dead animal. These stories continued and later would end up in tabloids posted all over the country lessening its importance in the consensus reality journalists would ignore data from credible witnesses and most samples of stool and hair would go unreported in field studies because of the fear of ridicule. The Bigfoot creature still, has that tabloid edge to him and he is always the topic of tall tales when all are snug in their sleeping bags listening to fireside ghost stories on family camping trips. In the year 2000 it seems that Bigfoot has decided to come out of hiding and many people are catching a glimpse at the fabled creature. What this means is uncertain however the testimony as of late is remarkable and deserves mention. An Oregon Psychologist believes that he saw Bigfoot and confirms what we have heard from similar reports of the beast, that he stinks! Dr. Matthew Johnson, a psychologist was hiking July 1 2000 with his wife Rochelle, and children 9 year old Levi, 7 year old Hannah and 4 year old Michah, when he saw what he reported to be Bigfoot. The creature fit the template of the big hairy stinky beast that has been written about in tabloid stories, scientific journals and Hollywood movies for decades. After speaking with Dr. Johnson on the phone it is evident that this is no tabloid story nor is it a story of an opportunist. Johnson clearly saw something and sent me his report of the incident. After reading it I was thrust into an investigation of a creature that I had once written off as a fable. The following story is in his own words and was sent to Ground Zero for this report:

Sasquatch Summer, continued

"Where to begin? Rochelle and I took our kids to the Oregon Caves National Park in southern Oregon. We ate lunch at a picnic table and then took a tour of the caves. The caves were spectacular. If you haven't seen them before, they are a must see experience. Upon our exit of the cave, everyone usually turns to the right to go back down to the gift store and lodge. However, we are fresh from Alaska and love to hike in the outdoors (i.e., we just moved from Alaska to Oregon earlier this year). We decided to go left and hike up to see the Big Tree (i.e., a Douglas fir tree with a circumference of 40 feet that is about 800 to 1,000 years old). We hiked fro about 2 miles into the forest up the mountain. As we were hiking up the trail, we smelled a very strong putrid smell. It was as strong as a skunk but it wasn't a skunk (i.e., we know what a skunk smells like and it wasn't a skunk even though it was as strong smelling as a skunk). We were standing down wind of the smell. We continued to hike up the trail and the trail started to switch back to the right as we climbed the mountain. There were plenty of tall trees and brush. I heard a faint sound (i.e., "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!). At first I thought it was the blood vessels pounding in my head because it was a constant sound/rhythm and I'm out of shape (i.e., it was a big mountain and were constantly walking up, up, up). We kept walking up the trail. I heard the sound again except it was louder. Then I thought, "This sound is external-not internal." We all stopped and I asked, "Do you guys hear that sound?" Rochelle, Levi, Hannah and Michah looked at me and nodded their heads in affirmation. Don't ask me why but we continued to walk up the mountain through the very tall trees and brush. The sound continued in cycles of five to six repetitions (i.e., Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa). Louder and louder. Now the sounds were behind us. I started putting one and one together in my mind and my biological "fight or flight" responses kicked in. I stopped my family on the trail. I told them to stay quiet. I hiked up the hill to our left because I had to go poop ASAP (i.e., this happens when the biological "fight or flight" response kicks in). While I was doing my duty, I was scanning the woods down the mountain on the other side of the trail my family was standing on. That's when I saw it. I swear I'm telling you the truth. I saw it come out from behind one tree to the left and walk to another tree to the right. Then it looked back and was watching my family while they were standing on the trail. I've hiked through the woods in Alaska numerous times and believe me, I know what a grizzly bear looks like and I know what a black bear looks like. I was actually chased by a grizzly bear on the Russian river in Alaska about six or seven years ago. What I saw was not a grizzly bear or a black bear. What I saw walked upright on two legs like a human and it was much taller than a grizzly bear or a black bear. What I saw was (and I swear I saw it and I'm not crazy) Bigfoot (otherwise known as Sasquatch). I swear I saw it. I'm not lying. I pulled up my shorts immediately, walked fast down to the trail and got my family moving up the mountain. I sure as heck wasn't going to go back down the trail where we came from and go right to it. I didn't tell my wife or children what I saw because I didn't want them to panic. At this point, the adrenaline was rushing and I was very hypervigilant (i.e., constantly looking behind us and through the woods). The sound stopped but I wasn't convinced we were safe. When we got to a place where the kids could stop and sit on a fallen log and drink some water, I pulled Rochelle away and told her that she wasn't going to believe what I saw. She believed me right away. She smelled the smell and she heard the repetitive cycles of "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa," and she knows I'm not crazy. I told her to keep the kids going and that I would stay at the back to keep my eyes on what was behind us. I told her that if anything came up from behind us or through the woods from the side of us that I would run interference to protect them. I told her that if this happened, I wanted her to run the kids on the trail, don't stop, and don't look back. We agreed not to tell the children because we didn't want to panic them. We never heard the sounds again and I never saw anything after that. We finally made it out of the woods about 1 1/2 hours later. We sent the kids into the gift store to look for a gift because we had promised to buy them something if they were good hikers and didn't complain. Rochelle and I sat on the bench outside the gift store and talked about the pros and cons of whether or not to report what we smelled, heard, and saw (i.e., I don't want people to think we are crazy). Rochelle said it was up to me. I decided that I wasn't going to keep this a secret because it was real and I know I'm sane. I remembered reading about how the albino gorilla was a myth/legend in Africa for quite some time until someone finally captured one. Well I'm here to tell you today (and the world) that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is not a myth/legend. The creature/animal really and truly does exist!!! After we made our decision, Rochelle went into the gift shop with the kids. I walked to the Park headquarters and reported what I saw to a ranger. I sat in the chair stunned and then I began to cry. All these emotions that I was stuffing due to the adrenaline began to surface now that my family and I were safe. You don't know how vulnerable I felt being so far out in the woods without the ability to protect my family in that kind of situation (i.e., no gun). I told the ranger that I was not crazy. I gave her my business card (i.e., I'm a licensed psychologist in private practice). I told her that I have two master's degrees and one doctorate degree and that I was an intelligent person. I told that I know what I smelled, heard, and saw. In between the tears and my shaking, I told her that I saw Bigfoot. She believed me! She didn't think I was crazy. She said that there is a lot about our world that we don't know and that are discovering new species all the time. She took my story, Rochelle's story, and Levi confirmed what the noise sounded like. I was the only one who saw Bigfoot because I had hiked up off the trail high enough to see it. I can't tell you what it looked like other than it was very tall, looked half-human and half ape, walked upright, and had very dark hair (i.e., a mix of very dark brown and/or black hair). It happened way too quick and all I could think about after I saw it was to get my family the heck out of there. Around 8:30 p.m. the park ranger called and left a message in my voice mailbox. She said that I might want to purchase the following book: Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing The Dark Divide by Robert Michael Pyle (1997). I'm goling to order/buy this book ASAP. They are going to check out the area that we reported the smell, sounds, and sighting tomorrow morning before other curiosity seekers arrive. I'm sending this to you because I have to tell others what we experienced. This animal is real. It does exist. I swear that Bigfoot exists!"

Sasquatch Summer, continued

Needless to say that Dr. Johnson has decided to go back to the area to do a thorough investigation into what he saw. He and a group of others have decided to take part in trying to find the creature. Johnson tells me that there is more evidence forthcoming that perhaps more than one Sasquatch lives in the area. The Northwest Bigfoot population seems to have reawakened and perhaps with serious researchers looking for a real creature and not some bogeyman we may see some results. However with the fresh sightings there are always a number of people who are bound and determined to get their outrageous theories heard. The fringe theories that make the other serious stories appear foolish. Most serious researchers are dismayed that while the scientific hunt for Bigfoot goes on, there are still those who boast these outrageous fringe theories and some are creating hoaxes that are ending up on TV and in print (If you are interested in reading some of these theories, read my un-edited Sasquatch Summer report on my website Thom Powell of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization laments that when real sightings happen there are a few fringe theories that creep into the mainstream press to sell newspapers. Whichever theory you embrace about the Bigfoot, Alien android, missing link, or something else entirely it is important to understand that in our investigations perhaps we could possibly be like the blind, touching an elephant. We all have different interpretations of what it might be but we may want to just call it what it is: a primate that somehow shows up and doesn't seem to be shy about making his presence known to mankind. Is it absurd to think that a Mountain Ape could live in the dense forests of the Northwest? Of course not. The unfortunate thing is that Bigfoot sightings have been treated like Elvis sightings. That is why people snicker and roll their eyes when someone claims to have seen one of them. The reality of Bigfoot may be as mundane as a monkey that has yet to be classified by science. However seeing one in the forests of the United States can be an experience not easily forgotten.

Big Shot
By Janet Bord
From Fortean Times Magazine, April 1997
Hunters might want to shoot a Bigfoot, but Janet Bord finds that many have already missed their target.
The debate about whether or not a Bigfoot should be shot to help scientists better protect the species is not new (see FT93:34). The record of sightings of giant hairy man-beasts in North America goes back nearly 200 years and in that time there have been many attempts to shoot one. As many of the sightings were made by seasoned hunters, it is somewhat surprising that no one has yet produced a body-assuming that the creature now called Bigfoot or Sasquatch really does exist. Why not? Three explanations became clear during my research for my book Bigfoot Casebook (published 1982 and now out of print). First, it seems that many hunters have fired at Bigfoot, but it is often too quick for them and they have been unable to hit it. Sometimes, when the hunters' bullets find their mark, the creature has seemed unworried by their impact, even when shot at point-blank range. In 1924, five men prospecting in Washington's Cascade mountains claimed to have been attacked by several Bigfoot creatures in a canyon. One of the men said that he fired three shots into one creature's head and two more into its body, but it kept running, Gary Joanis was another hunter who fired at a Bigfoot, this one having stolen the deer he had shot! Joanis and a colleague were hunting at Wanoga Butte in Oregon, in 1957, when the 9 ft (2.75 m) Bigfoot suddenly appeared, picked up the dead deer and carried it off under its arm. Annoyed, Joanis fired his .306 rifle repeatedly at the beast's back as it departed, but it gave no sign that it had been injured...unless its "strange whistling scream" was a cry of pain. It kept on walking and Joanis had no choice but to let it go. Fourteen-year-old James Lynn Crabtree was equally powerless when he tried to stop a Bigfoot. Out squirrel hunting near his home in Fouke, Arkansas, in 1965, he encountered an 8 ft (2.4 m) creature which turned to face him and then walk towards him. The boy shot it in the face three times with his shotgun, but it showed no sign of hesitating, so he fled. Two years later, a group of teenagers hunted several Bigfoot which had been seen around The Dalles in Oregon. One of the hunters saw a 7 ft (2.1 m) creature in a crouching position and blasted it in the chest with his 12-gauge shotgun. This knocked the creature down and it rolled over twice before it stood up and smashed its way through a fence, snapping off the fence-posts. The hunters returned the next day to follow the tracks and collect the carcass, but after 100 yards (90 m) they lost the trail as there were no bloodstains to follow. In 1974, a police patrolman fired two shots from his revolver at a 7 ft (2.1 m) as it walked down the road towards him near Fort Lauderdale in Florida. The creature screamed, jumped 20 ft (6 m) off the road and ran away at about 20 miles an hour (30 km/h). Some Bigfoot creatures have tried ot defend themselves when being shot at, as once occurred at Flintville, Tennessee, in 1976. Six men tracked a Bigfoot and fired on it repeatedly, but although it screamed, it gave no sign of succumbing to the onslaught of bullets. Instead, it threw rocks at its attackers before running away into the brush. The next day, 16 in (40cm) footprints, hair, blood and mucus were found. In 1979, Tim Meissner, 16, shot at a Bigfoot he saw in woods by Dunn Lake, British Columbia. He said: "He was about 9 ft (2.7 m) tall, black and hairy. He had a human-like face with great big, glaring, bright eyes and shoulders 4 ft (1.2 m) wide. He stood there glaring at me for at least three seconds. He was 50 ft (15 m) away-so close I could smell him. I don't even know why I shot. I was just scared, really scared. I was aiming for right between his eyes and he went down on one knee and one hand. At first I thought he was dead, but I guess I only grazed him, because he got up and ran away at about 30 miles an hour (50 km/h)." The second explanation for the lack of a Bigfoot carcass us that it is a paranormal creature rather than a physical one. This could explain a strange report from Port Isabel, Ohio. In 1968, three men caught a 10 ft (3 m)-tall, hairy man-beast in the flashlights. It walked towards them, its eyes glowing. One of the men shot it squarely from about 50 ft (15 m) away. The creature uttered a horrible scream as two more shots were fired at it.Then, as they watched, a white mist enveloped it. A minute later, the mist cleared and there was nothing left but darkness-no blood or any other trace of the creature was found. Even more bizarre is a report from Uniontown, Pennsylvania, where one night in February 1974, a woman heard a noise ouside her isolated house. She picked up her 16-gauge shotgun, intending to scare away the intruder. She turned on the outside light and stepped out onto the porch. A 7 ft (2.1 m), hairy Bigfoot stood just 6 ft (1.8 m) from her. It raised both hands above it head and, assuming it was going to jump at her, she shot at its midriff. There was a brilliant flash-like a photographer's flash bulb-and the creature disappeared leaving no trace. The third and more believable reason suggested for the lack of a carcass is that some hunters just couldn't pull the trigger because the creature looked too human. One such incident happened near Orestimba Creek in California, in 1869, when a hunter watched a hairy creature swing lighted sticks from his campfire around its head. He commented: "Fifteen minutes I sat and watched him as he whistled and scattered my fire about. I could easily have put a bullet through his head, but why should I kill him?" The same sentiment stopped William Roe from shooting the female Bigfoot he encountered on Mica Mountain in British Columbia in 1955. Hidden in a bush, he watched as, 20 ft (6 m) away, it ate leaves. In a detailed written description, he noted: "The thought came to me that if I shot it, I would possibly have a specimen of great interest to scientists the world over...I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away...turning its head im my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature 'it', I felt now that it was a human being and I knew i would never forgive myself if I killed it." In 1962, a woman on a prospecting and fishing holiday in British Columbia suddenly came face-to-face with a hairy man-beast and raised her rifle to protect herself. She said: "My first fleeting impression was that it was a human with very long arms. But it took me weeks to get out of my mind the look it was giving me from its small, black eyes as it stood there. It was like an ape, but like a human too." And in 1971, Richard Brown, a high-school music teacher, was likewise assailed by doubt when he saw a Bigfoot in a field near The Dalles in Oregon. Through the telescopic sight of his rifle, he watched the creature for five minutes, just 150 yards (140 m) away. He described it as a 10 ft (3 m)-tall, muscular, hairy creature, weighing 600-800 pounds (270-360 kg). Brown, a seasoned hunter, was sure it was not a bear nor an ape. As he lined it up in the scope sight and began to squeeze the trigger, he found he could not shoot it. He said: "It seemed more human than animal." Sometimes the witness realises that there is just no point in trying to kill the Bigfoot. Lieutenant Verdell Veo had several sightings around Little Eagle, South Dakota, in 1977, and on one occasion when he saw a Bigfoot by moonlight he had a strange feeling that no weapon would have been any use.

Big Shot continued

told me-I could sense it, if you can understand-that I had better just get out of there and leave the thing alone." On the evidence of these reported attempts to kill a Bigfoot, Lt. Veo would seem to be talking good sense! If no one has been able to kill a specimen, thus far, what makes today's would-be Bigfoot hunters think they can do any better?

A Drive Down Highway 16
Told to Chris Fleming
From Unknown Magazine, Winter 2000

The greatest thing about publishing this magazine is that you never know who is going to come forward with a true and amazing experience. Case in point: For over six years I had been attending various conventions. It was at one of these conventions, while promoting my magazine and selling some of my own collectibles, that Mike, another dealer to whom I had often spken over the years, told me something remarkable. With respect, he has asked me to keep his last name confidential. It was in 1997; I was promoting the second issue of Unknown Magazine, when Mike came over to my table, glanced at my magazine cover, and then walked casually away. After a few steps, he stopped, took a few tentative steps towards me again, and then moved quickly to my table. I was wondering, "What the heck is he doing?" It was obvious he wanted to say something-what it was, I had no idea. He asked me, as he pointed to my magazine, "Do you believe this stuff?" "Yes and no," I said. "Yes, I believe there are things that exist that we don't fully understand. No, in the sense that people have experiences dealing with these things each and every day, but each case has to be judged on its own merits." He nodded and looked quizzically at me again and asked, "Has anyone ever talked to you about Bigfoot?" I tried to think if anyone had. Wanting to say yes, what I said was, "No, not really." Little did I know that he was about to share his own experience with me. He nervously said he would like to tell me a story about what had happened to him, quickly adding, "I'm not crazy." As he began his story, I noticed his arms shaking nervously, and the forearm hairs standing on end. I realized that what this guy was telling me had scared him so badly that his fear could still evoke a physical reaction. My interest was piqued. When someone tells you their story, and you see them getting excited andworked up in the telling, you realize how eager they are to have someone to listen to them: Someone who can relate to their story, a story they are afraid to tell anyone else. I recently called Mike and asked him to relate his experience to me again so that I could share it with my readers. i have told his story as he relayed it to me. I thank Mike for deciding to tell this amazing story. With respect to his wishes, he has asked that I keep his last name confidential. -forward and transcription by Chris Fleming
Back in 1981 when I was 19, I was driving to Savannah, Georgia to visit my brother, with whom I was going to stay for a few months. I was living in Michigan, and felt it was time to get away from it all and pay my brother a visit. I was doing about 45-50 mph, headed down Route 75, towards Highway 16 going east to Savannah. It was 2 p.m. Driving down 16 east, the road was pretty desolate. I hadn't seen any cars for awhile. The drive was actually nice and peaceful. As I was driving, a movement up ahead on the side of the road caught my eye. It was a clear bright day, and I squinted, trying to get a better look, wondering what it was I had seen. Then I thought, "Wow, that looks like a huge bear. Wow, cool...a bear on the side of the road. Here's something I don't ever get to see in Michigan." As the excitement built, I began to slow down, because...I just had to check out this bear. As I approached it, slowing down to about 5 mph, the darn thing stood up. I was startled. I thought, "Cool! The bear is standing up. I have got to see this!" Then all of a sudden this bear, or so I thought, turned around and looked at me. I slowed down even more as I watched this thing on the right side of the road stare at me. Then I began to wonder. My mind raced. I never heard of a bear like this. This bear had odd characteristics. Then I realized, as I got closer, it didn't look like a bear anymore. The next thing the "bear" did was start walking across the road. I watched in disbelief, realizing that this was no damn bear. It walked upright, swinging its arms back and forth like a man. My hair stood up on my arms and I was like, "Shit!" As I got closer, it walked further to the other side of the road, still looking over its shoulder at me. I tell you this was in broad daylight, 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and my eyes never came off of it. I had my windows down, it being nice out and all. By this time I was driving at a snail's pace, about 5 mph, in my 1980 Spirit. As I continued on a slow coast we kept looking at each other. I couldn't take my eyes off of it. A Spirit is a very small car, and this thing was only 3-4 car lengths away from me. So you can imagine how scared I was. The only things moving were the wheels of my car. It had black fur with a reddish brown mix to it. It made no sound, but just kept glancing back at me, slowly taking its time as it crossed the road. I watched-completely paralyzed. This thing finally walked into the woods. I was amazed, and remember thinking to myself, "Oh, my God, that looks a Bigfoot." But I kept saying to myself, second guessing myself, "No, it can't be, it can't be." To this day I wish I could have had a camera with me. I would have taken some pictures. This was on Highway 16, southeast of Atlanta, 3/4 of the way between Atlanta and Savannah. This incident reminded me of an accident scene, when you slow down to check it out. As you drive past it you are like, "Wow." Once you have passed it by, you quickly drive away. In this case, I flew out of there, because I got nervous when I began to realize what I had actually seen. When I got to Savannah, I ended up telling my brother what had happened. He is 5 years older than me, about 24-25 at the time. I casually said to him, "Ya know, you are going to think I am stupid or that I have been drinking (which I never do, nor have I ever done drugs, so I know I wasn't hallucinating), "but I think I saw Bigfoot." He started laughing and said, "Mike, you are not the only one, because I think I saw one too." I was astonished, "What? How?" And to my amazement he told me his story. We discussed the Bigfoot creature. We both had seen a creature that was the same height-about 7 feet tall, and moved slowly, with a weird gait. This thing was pretty identical to the one I had seen in movie clips and described on TV. My brother, who was in the service, and had moved down to Savannah a year prior to our visit, had seen the same thing, on the same road, in the same area, just 4-5 months before I did. His description and mine were the same. I was relieved to know that I wasn't the only one to see this thing, but I was also dumbfounded.

Interview with a Bigfoot Hunter
by Daniel Perez
from Fate Magazine, February 1998

John Green looks back at 40 years on the track of Sasquatch
In the annals of Bigfoot research and investigation, few people remain as steadfast in the pursuit as John Green, one of the true pioneers in the field. Green has been tracking Bigfoot for 40 years. In 1961, the late Ivan T. Sanderson described him as indefatigable, and Green, who turns 71 this month, shows no sign of letting up. The British Columbia native has written such classics as On The Track of The Sasquatch (1968), Year of The Sasquatch (1970), The Sasquatch File (1973), and the definitive Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us (1978). The six-foot-plus, slender Green has been at the scene of the classic Bigfoot events: the Patterson-Gimlin film, the Glen Thomas incidents, the Ruby Creek sighting, and the Albert Ostman abduction. One of his major career findings is that Bigfoot reports occur in areas where there is more than 20 inches of rain per year. Lately Green has been involved in computerizing his massive files, and he recently returned from a research trip to Russia. Bigfoot hunters hope his completed database will provide important clues about Bigfoot's existence.

Fate: Forty years ago "Bigfoot" had not yet been heard of, even in California, and "Sasquatch" was a British Columbia phenomenon. What was it presumed to be?
Green: The picture presented to the non-Indian community was of giant Indians wearing breech clouts, hairy only in that they had long hair on their heads; a wild tribe who had a language, lived in villages, and communicated with signal fires. The Indians knew what they really looked like, but did consider them to be human.
Fate: When you began investigating, what did you learn?
Green: It very quickly became clear that first-person descriptions didn't match the popular concept. Witnesses told of creatures completely covered with short hair and looking more like erect apes than people. There was no mention of clothing, fire, or villages. Observations of behavior accumulated more slowly, but were equally consistent. The added up to a creature that depended on physical abilities, not mental ones: They used no tools, had no language and no home, didn't form groups, and generally lived the same lives as bears.
Fate: What do you think is up and coming in the field of Sasquatch research?
Green: I hope DNA techniques will soon be able to establish if hair is from an unknown higher primate, and with camcorders so common someone should get a good video of a Sasquatch before long. But for a decisive conclusion someone has to get a Sasquatch, or part of one, which almost certainly depends on chance. A Sasquatch should have been collected by now. I have no explanation why that hasn't happened.
Fate: What might humans learn by collecting a Sasquatch?
Green: The study of another higher primate that has adapted to bipedal locomotion is bound to add a lot to human knowledge. It should also be useful to research the reasons our branch of the primate family was so insistent that this other branch
must not exist.
Fate: Would you shoot one?
Green: I don't know, I don't hunt anything...But there is no hope of protecting their habitat without first proving that they exist, and science has made it very clear that only physical remains will do that.
Fate: What is your computer study telling you?
Green: I don't think any computer study will enable anyone to make an appointment with a Sasquatch, as some claim. What my work does is give a quick access to the massive amount of information in my files so that I can answer questions and check theories against what has actually been reported.

Interview with a Bigfoot Hunter, continued

For example, the average height estimate is slightly more than seven and a half feet. Average footprint size is 16 inches long and seven inches wide. There are no patterns indicating that Sasquatch migrate. A powerful smell is reported in only about one third of close encounters, indicating that Sasquatch either control emission of the odor, or, like silverback gorillas, only emit it under stress.
Fate: How many reports do you have on file?
Green: More than 3,000, counting both sightings and footprints. More than half are from eastern North America, and for most of those I have little specific information.
Fate: What might be a reasonable guesstimate as to how many Sasquatches are on the North American continent?
Green: For Sasquatches to be reported as widely throughout North America as they are, a reasonable estimate of their numbers has to be in the thousands, probably tens of thousands.
Fate: How do you explain the lack of fossil evidence?
Green: I don't consider the lack of fossils at all unlikely. Many fossil finds are of large creatures not previously known to exist, and I am told that there is as yet no fossil ancestor for gorillas.
Fate: What do Sasquatches live on?
Green: They have been reported eating many types of vegetation, including leaves, but also killing other animals, presumably for food. Evidence is mounting that they are major predators, easily able to catch and kill deer.
Fate: How do they survive in winter?
Green: Since there are no patterns in the accumulated information to suggest that they migrate, it seems probable that they hibernate. As predators they could obtain food in winter, but the scarcity of tracks in snow indicates that they aren't active.
Fate: Are they an endangered species?
Green: How could they be? There is no confirmed record of any being killed by humans, and they are reported almost everywhere in the world. North America, particularly, must have a thriving population, but some are suffering habitat destruction in places where wild areas are being cleared and subdivided.
Fate: Aren't they sometimes seen in groups?
Green: Very rarely. More than 90 percent of reports involve a single individual, and only 2 percent involve more than three.
Fate: What about mothers and young?
Green: Very few reports involved identifiable females, and there are almost none of females carrying small ones. Since higher primates can't travel on their own for years, it seems that females must be careful to avoid places where they might be seen.
Fate: If I pressed you for a definite yes or no with regard to the famous 1924 abduction of Albert Ostman by a family of Sasquatches in British Columbia, which way would you go?
Green: Given only that choice I have to say yes, but with no great assurance. I would reject a story like that today, because the information to fake it is now in circulation, but I came to know Albert Ostman well and heard him questioned by experts in ape anatomy and in cross-examination. I don't think he was lying.

Interview with a Bigfoot Hunter, continued

Fate: What's your feeling about Forest Service patrolman Paul Freeman's 1982 sighting in Oregon, which resulted in Newsweek coverage and Freeman quitting his job, and the reported footprints with dermal ridges?
Green: I would have little reason to question Paul Freeman's story of his original sighting had he not followed it up with an unbelievable number of further claims. As to the dermal ridge evidence, I find it interesting but not conclusive.
Fate: Do you think hoaxers are a lot more sophisticated today?
Green: The most sophisticated hoaxes I know of took place about 20 years ago, but there may well have been better ones since which have not been exposed.
Fate: The 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film was the red-letter event of Bigfoot studies, What's been your best case, minus that one?
Green: There may be a better "best case" than Patterson-Gimlin, namely Glen Thomas' story of Sasquatches digging out and eating hibernating rodents in a rock pile near Estacada, Oregon (in 1967). A great range of behavior was observed with three very different individuals, and hard evidence-a pit in the rocks that neither bear nor human could duplicate-is still there.
Fate: There is now a new generation of scientists who grew up knowing about the Sasquatch question. Might this group be more successful in obtaining funding than past generations?
Green: The negative peer reaction toward scientists doing Sasquatch research has eased a lot in recent years. I think some of them may well be able to get funding soon. Fate: So, do you think the search for the Sasquatch will be wrapped up within your lifetime?
Green: Probably not. I don't have another 40 years.
Fate: Well, if you knew in 1957 the Sasquatch mystery would not be resolved in 1998, would you have gotten involved?
Green: Do I regret becoming involved? No, I don't.

Bigfoot-What The News Media Won't Tell You
By David Taub
From Unknown Magazine, Winter 2000

Should you be so lucky as to find a magazine or newspaper article about Bigfoot, sometimes referred to as Sasquatch, and you as likely find that it is treated as a joke, you can confidently inform the reporter or editor that the joke is on them for being so ill-informed about this extensively studied subject. Those individuals and organizations who have either exclusively studied Bigfoot, or embraced the study of Bigfoot in the broader subject of "Cryptozoology," include highly qualified scientists, teachers, wildlife officials, law enforcement officers, and technicians. A book titled "The Magic of our Universe-Beyond The Facts" lists a number of such individuals and organizations including:
Peter Byrne, Director of the Bigfoot Research Project (BRP, now defunct) which received grant funding from the Academy of Applied Science in Concord, NH.
Daniel Perez, Director of the Center For Bigfoot Studies (CBS), Norwalk, CA.
Jeff Glickman, Board Certified Forensic Examiner, and Executive Director of the North American Science Institute (NASI)
Dr. Richard Greenwell, cryptozoologist and secretary for the International Society of Cryptozoology, Tuscon, AZ.
Dr. Grover Krantz (deceased), cryptozoologist and professor of Anthropology at Washington State University.
Jeff Meldrum, associate professor of anthropology and anatomy at Idaho State University.
Dr. John Bindernagel, Co-Curator of The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), which is headed up by Matt Moneymaker and maintains a database of all Bigfoot/Sasquatch eyewitness reports and related observations.
Although these various organizations and individuals liase and work with each other with each other to varying degrees, it is the BFRO which is under the spotlight for this article. They have an excellent website ( and can be emailed at The BFRO describes itself as "
A unique scientific/investigative organization focused on the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mystery." And those who make up this organization include, "Biological scientists, government land management employees, law enforcement officers, and professionals from various backgrounds."
The website is methodically laid out and easy to navigate, tackling all aspects of the subject and dealing with all the obvious questions a novice or skeptic would pose. The frequently asked questions (FAQ's) and points of debate, each have their own heading which includes:
*How could these creatures still be undocumented after all this time?
*Evidence vs. Remains
*Nobody Looks For Bigfoot Remains
*The Roadkill Potential
*Hunter Behavior-hunters don't hunt for these animals.
Some of the in-depth information explained, left me thinking, "Geez! That is so obvious and common-sense, why didn't I think about that?! It also dispelled a number of myths and easily made false assumptions. It is not just the false assumptions that we the general public and mainstream media make, which leads to the easy dismissal of such creatures but also the same flawed assumptions which are frequently made by academia, as BFRO explains: "The common academic attitude is often referred to as the "show me the body" position. The mountain of evidence and testimony is ignored because a specimen hasn't been delivered to academia yet. Very few academics ever consider that physical remains of these animals might be extremely rare and thus unlikely to be found at random. In an era where people are confident that every land animal species has been identified, the idea of an undiscovered great ape species in North America seems absurd. It's challenging for people in this era to realize that only very recently (relative to our history) has civilization adopted a popular presumption that every species has been accounted for. Less than 100 years ago, large animal species were still being "discovered" by western science. Those discoveries usually happened in the context of expeditions to look for unusual animals described by reliable eyewitnesses." Although Native Americans have been aware of the existence of Bigfoot, in particular the tribes of British Columbia who refer to the creature as Sasquatch (Wild Man of the Woods), and the Hoopa tribes of Hoopa Valley, CA, who refer to the creature as Omah (Boss of the Woods), in typical white western dismissive arrogance, their accounts had been given little credence until the past 40 years. This primarily being as a result of the first Associated Press newsline, which picked up on the cast made of several large footprints and nicknamed "Bigfoot" by some workmen on a road in California. Interestingly enough, Teddy Roosevelt described what is quite likely a Bigfoot in his book, The Wilderness Hunter. Ultimately the best evidence is that of the Patterson and Gimlin, 1967 footage, but it still took several more years-the mid 70's before a feature film documentary called "The Mysterious Monsters" showed the Patterson-Gimlin footage. And still, repeated attempts to discredit the footage as a hoax have been, and continue to be made. And that is inspite of extensive study of the footage by cryptozoologist, Dr. Grover Krantz and primate anatomist, Jeff Meldrum. Then, (as documented in Kent Moberg's book, TheMagic of Our Universe) Jeff Meldrum, pointing out details that only an expert in primatology would be able to duplicate states.

Bigfoot-What The News Media Won't Tell you continued

"It's the same way great apes with their thick upper necks have to move when looking back in mid stride." But is this footage the only "evidence" supporting the existence of Bigfoot? One would rightly think not, especially with so many qualified and credentiated individuals continuing their investigations, some who have done so for over thirty years. As the BFRO explains: "There is quite a bit of physical evidence. Tracks, hairs, scats and tree damage are all "physical evidence." People tend to misuse that term (physical evidence) when they really mean physical remains. The assertion that there is absolutely no physical evidence is absolutely false. There is more physical evidence than most people realize. Physical evidence is found every month in various areas across the country. Distinct tracks that do not match each other but no known wild animals, and large scats that could not be made by any known species, are all physical evidence." In spite of all the information presented in this article, the greatest obstacle that the BFRO and similar research organizations have to overcome, is the misperception the general public has of this subject, mostly as a result of the disinformation and ridicule perpetuated by tabloid commercialism. According to the BFRO, "Some of the reports that come in can be honest misinterpretations. Honest people make honest mistakes. If we believe that the person saw something attributed to natural wildlife, etc,. we try to explain this to the persons what they could have seen." Acknowledgements go to Kent Moberg, author of The Magic of our Universe-Beyond the facts, and Ron Schaffner of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. Check out the BFRO website, for a comrehensive database of authentic sightings of Bigfoot/Sasquatches, related reports, and a large selection of old newspaper clippings reporting back to 1800's. The data base is maintained by the network of Bigfoot researchers, archivists, and investigators in the United States and Canada. If you have an authentic sighting incident to report, or any old news clippings you can mail to them or go to their website to report it. You can also check out Ron Schaffner's own website, Creature Chronicles-Independent Information and wildlife phenomena at Bfro is always looking for sponsors and funding. The only way to really discover a specimen or real hard evidence is to be able to hire investigators full time to stay in the forests for a month or two. If you would like to contact them you can go to their website at:
Or write:
Ron Schaffner
c/o BFRO
P.O. Box 158
Milford, Ohio 45150

New "Sasquatch" found-It's Called Bigfoot
The Province newspaper, Monday, Oct. 6, 1958
Author unknown

Eureka, Calif. (AP)-Jerry Crew, a hard-eyed catskinner who bulldozes logging roads for a living, came to town this weekend with a plaster cast of a footprint. The footprint looks human, but it is 16 inches long, seven inches wide, and the great weight of the creature that made it sank the print two inches into the dirt. Crew says an ordinary foot will penetrate that dirt only half an inch. "I've seen hundreds of these footprints in the past few weeks," said Crew. He added he made the cast of a print in dirt he had bulldozed Friday in a logging operation in the forests above Weitchpeg, 50 miles north and a bit east of here in the Klamath River country of northwestern California. Crew said he and his fellow workmen never have seen the creature, but often have had a sense of being watched as they worked in the tall timber. Bigfoot, as the Bluff Creek people call the creature, apparently travels only at night. Crew said he seems fascinated by logging operations, particularly the earth moving that Crew does with his bulldozer in hacking out new logging trails. "Every morning we find his footprints in the fresh earth we've moved the day before," Crew said. Crew said Robert Titmus, a taxidermist from Redding, studied the tracks and said they were not made by any known animals. "And they can't be made by a bear, as there are no claw marks." "The foot has fine stubby toes and the stride averages about 50 inches when he's walking and goes up to 10 feet when he's running. Two years ago reports from this area told of logging camp equipment tumbled about, including full 50-gallon drums of gasoline scattered by some unknown agency.

Sasquatch Hunt Moves From Harrison To Fraser Canyon
Agassiz Folk Examine Cases
By A.C. Milliken, October 29, 1958
From unknown Canadian newspaper

The Sasquatch hunt has now moved from Harrison Lake area to Yale. Last Sunday, Mr. and Mrs. John Green of Agassiz, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Rene Dahinden, visited the Yale area and accompanied by friends from Yale, examined a cave reported to have been the home of a Sasquatch. Mr. Green, who is publisher of the Agassiz Advance, has done considerable research in this connection. His attention was drawn to this area by a news story carried in the Victoria Colonist under the date of July 3, 1884. Briefly, the story reports that a creature, described as half man and half beast, was captured in the vicinity of No. 4 tunnel above Yale. It is described as resembling a human being with but one exception. His entire body is covered with black glossy hair about one inch long, except the hands (or paws) and feet. It possesses extraordinary strength and occasionally utters a noise described as half bark and half growl. The Colonist article gives a dramatic description of the capture including the names of the participants, who have been found to be persons living in Yale at the time, and employed on the railroad construction. All were men of importance and holding responsible positions, one being the engineer in charge. Mr. Green interviewed August Castle, dean of oldtimers in this area. Mr. Castle was a young boy at the time and does not remember the incident but he does have a recollection of hearing later that such a "thing" had been caught. Annie York of Spuzzum was also interviewed. While Miss York does not have the age qualifications to verify the story, her wealth of knowledge of eaerly incidents as told to her by the old people years ago, yielded no clue in this connection. However, Miss York related many stories if reported sighting of Sasquatch at different points in Canyon area. A preliminary investigation of the above mentioned cave leads one to believe that it has been inhabited at one time by some form of life. Some osteological material was found but not sufficient to prove conclusively what it was.

Believers spellbound by Bigfoot
By Claire Ogilvie, Staff Reporter, May 23, 1993
The Province newspaper

Meeting draws experts, laymen
At first it looked like a black speck against the snow. It moved rapidly down the mountain and as it came closer it looked like a moose. But through the binoculars the hunters realized it was walking upright. They watched spellbound- the adrenaline just pumps through you when something doesn't make sense-as the creature moved effortlessly through the snow without snowshoes. Or clothing, either. "It was running bare-naked through three feet of snow," the astounded outdoorsman told two dozen Bigfoot believers at a conference at Harrison Hot Springs, in the heart of Sasquatch country. "It was big and black. This creature must have been a minimum of eight feet tall. Was it just casually on a Sunday afternoon stroll? I don't think so. I'll have a mystery in my mind for the rest of my life." The men who spotted the humongous hairy humanoid near Christina Lake, 60 kilometres southwest of Castlegar, last October won't be identified for fear of ridicule-like a lot of other Sasquatch spotters. But believers say you can't discount the thousands of sightings, footprints and even a video. Sasquatch sympathizer John Green, who has been looking for Bigfoot for 40 years from his Harrison home, said: "Reports of this creature come from all over the world and can be traced as far as there are records. Either you've got an animal with feet like this or you have a human conspiracy to manufacture evidence, and it's worldwide and it goes back as far as history. Either explanation is ridiculous but one must be true. It must be an animal, because that is the simplest explanation." Green said Bigfoot can reach 4.5 metres in height and weigh 450 kilograms (1,000 pounds). The hair covering its body is either black, brown or auburn. Its strides are 1.8 to 2.4 metres long. Its footprints are about 60 centimetres long and 20 cm wide and look similar to man's. Author Tom Steenburg of Calgary told the conference that Bigfoot is probably a great ape that migrated across the Bering Sea land bridge tens of thousands of years ago. "What scientists really need to prove this animal exists is a body or a piece of a body." he said. "Nothing else will do."

On a myth and a footprint
By Stewart Bell, from unknown newspaper
October 23, 1993

Is a hairy, ape-like creature with big feet in the mountains of British Columbia, carefully avoiding scientists and bounty hunters? Three recently released books revolve around this question and the search for the elusive beast that lives in the house of unsolved mysteries along with the Loch Ness Monster, Ogopogo and whoever puts the filling into Cadbury bars. For some reason this seems to be the year of the Sasquatch in the North American publishing world, which leads me to suspect it's been a slow year. Or does someone out there really take Bigfoot seriously enough to publish a 300-page "scientific" study of the issue? Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry into the Reality of Sasquatch is an attempt to bring what is so far only a campfire tale into the world of factual science. Although no Sasquatch has ever been captured-dead or alive-and no skeleton has ever been found, Grover Krantz's book painstakingly argues the case for its existence. The book reads like a physics tex, with exhausting detail, diagrams, studies of the posture of Bigfoot and photographs of large footprints. A lighter telling of the Bigfoot legend appears in Sasquatch/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature,by longtime Sasquatch enthusiast Rene Dahinden and Don Hunter, a columnist with the Vancouver Province. Like Krantz, Dahinden is a believer in Bigfoot, and Hunter seems to lean that way as well. But rather than overwhelming readers with pseudo-scientific "proof" that the creature exists, the authors simply tell the stories of those who claim to have seen it. There is Albert Ostman, who claims that in 1924 he was held captive for a week by four Sasquatches. There is Myles Jack, a member of an Alberta rig crew, who believes he saw a Sasquatch near Dawson Creek in 1987. And there is Roger Patterson, who in 1967 shot a grainy, out-of-focus film of an ape-like animal in Northern California. The book is like a tabloid newspaper. It's entertaining, but only if you temporarily suspend your mental faculties. Thinking too hard about this stuff will take all the fun out of it. Richard Hoyt's Bigfoot, on the other hand, is a mystery novel that uses the Sasquatch as the backdrop for a tale of love and murder. When a real-estate developer offers $100,000 to anyone who can prove that Bigfoot exists, private eye John Denson teams up with a native Indian shaman named Willie Preettybird and a female Russian scientist to claim the prize. It is interesting that of the three books on the topic, Hoyt's work of fiction comes closest to an intelligent examination of the Bigfoot phenomenon. The other two books fail to ask the most important questions" What is it about the Bigfoot mystery that fascinates some people? Why do people believe so strongly in an animal that has never been proven to exist? Is it because of some subconscious desire to hang on to what little mystery remains in the modern, frontierless, scientific world? "The search for the Sasquatch is a lot like looking for the Holy Grail," says Dahinden. "Except it is performed by very unholy people." Perhaps they are not unholy, just confused.

Foot skin patterns "prove existence of Sasquatch"
By Moira Farrow, from unknown newspaper
October 23, 1982

Skin patterns just like fingerprints are the latest evidence that the Sasquatch is real, a U.S. anthropologist claimed at a press conference here Friday. Dr. Grover Krantz, associate professor of anthropology at Washington State University, earlier this year produced plaster casts and photographs of footprints made by a creature believed to be a Sasquatch. The underside of the feet showed skin patterns, known to scientists as dermal ridges, which Krantz said belong to a higher primate but not an ape or a human. "They come from a higher primate that doesn't exist so we have an interesting problem here," he said. "I think these may be the best set of prints of a Sasquatch ever obtained." Krantz was speaking at a press conference organized by the International Society of Cryptozoology (a group of people interested in "hidden animals") at the University of B.C. He said the footprint casts and photographs were made by the staff of the Walla Walla, Wash., office of the U.S. Forest Service and an Oregon search and rescue volunteer. He said some of the prints are believed to have been made by an ape-like creature seen last June 10 by Forest service employee Paul Freeman near the Washington-Oregon border. Other prints were obtained in the same general area on two subsequent occasions a week or so later. The prints averaged 38 centimetres long and represented two individual creatures each weighing 300 to 350 kilograms, according to Krantz. "All of this, including the sighting of the creature, are relatively routine," said Krantz. "We have over 1,000 cases of Sasquatch sightings and footprints." He said the unusual new evidence are the dermal ridges-fine lines about half a millimetre apart in the skin of the feet. "These are the same kind of ridges you have in our fingerprints," he said. "It is beyond the ability of anyone to fake these ridges." Krantz said he called in a police fingerprint expert who concluded that the prints were not human. And he said the toes (mostly equal in size) were not those of an ape. Krantz said further analysis of the footprints is now being done by police and anthropologists. "The police expert told me that whoever made the tracks had walked barefoot for a long time because some of the ridges are worn," said the professor. "Dermal ridges have never before been seen on footprint casts," said Krantz. He speculated that the creature which made these prints had happened to step into mud "that was right on the point of setting" so making particularly clear prints. He said he has plans to return to the area next summer because his society believes the only way of finally proving the existence of the Sasquatch is to "obtain a specimen." Asked whether he planned to kill one, Krantz said his society has no policy "hunting or not hunting."

Mrs. Sasquatch filmed in color?
By Tony Eberts, from unknown newspaper
October 25, 1967

The Sasquatch is not dead; it is alive, and living in Northern California-according to a Yakima man who claims to have the first motion pictures of one of the legendary creatures. The film, said to contain a clear, 30-second scene of a hairy female Sasquatch, will be shown at the University of B.C. Thursday night to a select group of Pacific Northwest anthropologists and zoologists. Despite suggestions that many people have been known to go hairy in California, or that the film star may be only a hippie that went too far, amateur photographer Roger Patterson, 34, is convinced he has finally proved existence of wild, furry mountain giants. Don Abbott, an anthropologist with the provincial museum in Victoria, said Tuesday he has some evidence to support the film-plaster casts of huge footprints found in the same California region in September. "I went down there (it's a remote region about 100 miles northeast of Eureka) two months ago and examined many of the footprints," he said. "It's either a highly elaborate hoax, or some of these hairy humanoids exist. Like everyone connected with the provincial museum, I started out completely skeptical; I just laughed at the idea. But now I'm not sure at all. If the idea of Sasquatches weren't so fantastic I'd be prepared to believe it now." Rene Dahinden, another Sasquatch enthusiast of Vancouver and Lumby, has made a plaster cast of what he claims was a giant Sasquatch footprint in Northern California. Contacted at his home in Yakima, Wash., Roger Patterson told The Province the story of his epic film-making trip: "I've been chasing down reports of these creatures for years, and was attracted to the Northern California region by repeated findings of fresh tracks on road projects. Last Friday my companion-Bob Gimlin, a part-Apache fellow who's good at tracking and so on-and I started up an old logging road where a particular lot of big tracks had been seen. Some of the tracks were 17 inches long. We rode horses, and I had a 16-millimetre movie camera in my saddlebag. We both had high-powered rifles, but we agreed that if we found a Sasquatch we wouldn't shoot unless we absolutely had to. About 1:30 in the afternoon, as we rounded a bend in the road, we saw the creature. My horse reared, and then fell as I tried to control it. But I got the camera out and yelled to Bob to cover me with his rifle while I tried for pictures. The thing was across the creek beside the road, about 50 yards away. I ran down to the creek and got on a high sandbar to film it. It was obviously a female, for although it was covered with hair you could see it had large breasts. It stood about six feet tall, maybe more, and was very broad. We figured the weight at somewhere between 350 and 400 pounds. She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright. She crossed the creek, got back on the logging road up ahead and moved out of sight. Bob started to follow on his horse, but I called him back. The tracks we'd seen earlier indicated she was part of a family group, and that could be dangerous. I was shaking quite a bit, so the film isn't too steady, but it shows the thing clearly. I've believed they existed for a long time, just from talking to many eye-witnesses. Now there's no doubt at all." Patterson, who said he makes his living devising farm machinery improvements, hopes to get up a full-scale Sasquatch safari soon, with a view to capturing one of the creatures. It isn't a new idea for B.C., where various such expeditions have been attempted with a notable lack of success. But Patterson is pinning his hopes on the tangible evidence of 16-millimetre movie film, in color. "If the film convinces the experts at UBC Thursday night," he said, :there'll be no stopping me." There have been scores of Sasquatch reports and sightings in B.C. over the years, with most of the tales emanating from the Harrison Lake area. John Green of Harrison, a B.C. Sasquatch expert and newspaper editor, said he had already seen the film. "It's definitely a film of a Sasquatch," he said. "I don't believe it can possibly be a fake." Green said he has seen many Sasquatch footprints in Northern California and the Harrison area, up to 17 inches long. "Anyone who has had a good look at these prints doesn't go away believing there is nothing to it," he said. Green added that scientists have been reluctant to investigate the subject for fear of their reputations. "We have succeeded in deluding ourselves that these creatures don't exist." He seriously believes a Sasquatch can be captured if there is a concerted effort. "Up to now the subject hasn't been taken seriously," he said.

Sasquatches Really Exist, It Says Here
Author Unknown, from unknown newspaper
January 12, 1968

Vancouver, B.C. (AP)-John Green, a weekly newspaper editor, and Rene Dahinden, a lead salvager, said yesterday they have bought the Canadian rights of a 60-second film clip said to show an abominable snow woman, or Sasquatch. They said they bought the film, which Roger Patterson of Yaima, Wash., said he made in Northern California last fall, for $1,500. The pair said they intended to use the film in a one-hour movie they are making in hopes of proving Sasquatches do exist on the West Coast.