Bauman Story

[norseman]

Ok after some digging I'll post up what I found in the NAWAC thread:

 

JW:

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Consulting Arment's The Historical Bigfoot: Early Reports of Wild Men, Hairy Giants, and Wandering Gorillas in North America, we find the following for SE Oklahoma: 1859, a "strange critter" that Arment says "matched that of a hairy primate" was seen by a hunter in McCurtain County: 1926, a doctor from the Goodwater area reported seeing a "thing" run across the road in front of his Model T; 1926, two hunters saw a "manbeast" who later killed their dog. 

 

Bipto:

That's funny. I said, "People have been seeing them there for years and years," and you posted reports of people seeing them from many years ago and my claim is then somehow unsubstantiated. Even though you substantiated it. I see.

 

Two things. First, in my experience, wood ape encounter reports are like mice in your house. One usually means many once you start looking for them. Second, you're ignoring completely the Native American experiences and lore. They're people, they've been there for years and years, and they've been seeing them. 

 

JW:

You also said that wood apes have been sighted there for as long as people have been there.

 

Of course I did not substantiate your claim. I noted the paucity of reports "for years and years." Even the 3 reports I noted were ambiguous as related to giant, bipedal apes.

 

Your claim about sightings is unsubstantive, probably impossible to substantiate. 

 

You realize that contemporary, lightly vetted reports from Bigfoot websites or undocumented, generalized statements about "Native American experiences and lore" are more lore-like than objective fact? Yes?

 

Norse:

So by saying the term "report"? What your really asking for is some sort of Police investigation report? Something with the weight of a authoritative body?

 

Cuz, I cannot speak for Bipto, but I took "report" to simply mean that somebody said they saw something, whether to family members, fellow townsfolk, the newspaper, whatever.

 

JW:

If "somebody said they saw something, whether to family members, fellow townsfolk, the newspaper, whatever" then the chances of you or me or Bipto knowing about it would be slim to none in most cases. So, stating that this is indeed the state of affairs, although one would not truly know it, is lore or hearsay unless documented. Hence, unsubstantiated.

 

And I would not look to Bigfoot websites for relief on this issue. If wood apes were sighted often enough, for "years and years" and since people have lived in the area, the data ought not be weighted heavily in favor of the last few decades, when the Bigfoot meme spread. There would be many reports in various venues through recorded history of the area. This does not seem to be the case 

 

For instance, look at such report sites and you will find more and more reports of "wood knocking" of recent vintage, once that meme began spreading.

 

Norse:

I see what your trying to do here. Your attempting to show the Sasquatch mystery in a "post bluff creek heavy media" light, correct? What if Barack Obama came out and shared a Bigfoot story? What would you say to that? And what if it was 100 years ago? Teddy Roosevelt did just that..........so is that vetted in your mind?

 

Obviously Sasquatch like any mystery today gains a foot hold in the homes of millions like it never has before. The simply fact that you and I are debating on the world wide web is an amazing thing......... one hundred years ago this would have been done by pen and stamp and many weeks to months.

 

Drew and I were just debating the wood knocks, I brought up the fact that I have experienced a similar phenomenon come Elk hunting season. Heavily hunted areas usually has hunters "bugling" each other in, thinking the other is an Elk. I pointed out this doesn't make Elk any less real just because two silly Human hunters call each other in with Elk calls. Without a doubt with TV shows and the internet that people are getting off the couch and going into the wood to try a few wood knocks. With the Smith family just over the ridge with the same idea............ABSOLUTELY.

 

What your confusing is human impressionability with the possibility of a living creature. Bobo doing hand stands while making Squatchy calls and millions of impressionable viewers responding in kind doesn't have anything to do with a Sasquatch.

 

Anyhow, I think your confusing modern media with a myth creation. Whether Sasquatch is real or not, there is no doubt that the myth was with us WELL before the 1950's. Your mileage may vary.

 

JW:

Sorry for this late reply.

 

I think you have retro activated “myth creation†as it relates to sasquatch. Look at your example of Roosevelt’s Bauman story. In your mind Roosevelt “came out and shared a Bigfoot story.†Yet, Roosevelt didn’t. Your example shows that the Bigfoot myth creation of the last few decades has incorporated old accounts that do not relate to Bigfoot. This is an erroneous case building to give Bigfoot a back-story, a history that it does not have. Roosevelt’s story is relevant only because it puts a two-legged culprit at the center of an old-timer’s campfire story. The future president does not relate it to an ape. Only Bigfoot enthusiasts, cryptozoologists, and Forteans see this story as an endorsement of an 1800’s sasquatch.

 

In his book, BIGFOOT EXPOSED, anthropologist David Daegling noted the Bauman story is “unmistakably mythological in structure.†Furthermore, “Roosevelt was inclined to think the offender was a known, but unidentified, wild animal, and Peter Byrne notes that the injuries suffered by Bauman’s unlucky partner fit the description of a bear attack. Roosevelt prefaced the account by suggesting that Bauman was susceptible to supernatural suggestion ’when overcome by the fate that befell his friend, and when oppressed by the awful dread of the unknown, he grew to attribute, both at the time and still more in remembrance, weird and elfin traits to what was merely some abnormally wicked and cunning wild beast.’ Roosevelt was decidedly noncommittal in his endorsement of the story and clearly skeptical of Bauman’s reliability as an eyewitness.â€

 

Daegling suggests that if the Bauman story really were a sasquatch event, “then we have an account suggesting that Bigfoot has a penchant for killing, and perhaps dining on, territorial interlopers.†This should give NAWAC team members pause.

 

Another erroneous Bigfoot back-story is the David Thompson account, supposedly showing an early 1800’s sasquatch track find. In truth, Thompson himself identified the tracks as those of large bear. He seemed a bit puzzled because others thought the tracks might be from a mammoth. Nowhere does he claim the tracks were from a bipedal animal. Here is a link to the Thompson track way and mammoth connection that does away with the story treated as a Bigfoot story: http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2860

 

Ever wonder why, with the Jacko story, no one at the time said “hey, this is a young sasquatch or the ape native to these parts?†The probable answer is that no one had any knowledge of indigenous apes.

 

Even if you look at the Jerry Crew incident which produced the term Bigfoot, at first no local folk had a clue as to who or what had left the tracks. Talk of a giant Indian kid, a runaway from a 1930’s CCC camp, bear, and even Lemurians from the caves of Mt. St. Helens were in the media. When John Green showed up, he linked the tracks to an animal he hypothesized existed in British Columbia too: a giant, bipedal ape, America’s version of the yeti. And the rest is …. history.

 

Norse:

I made my response in a separate thread as I feel we are just clogging up NAWAC's thread here. It's titled "Bauman Story" in General Discussion.

[Guest]

Norseman,

Critiquing your ideas:

The Ostman Account --

You continue to argue from an odd perspective. Either you are harried, or maybe you just don’t have a grasp of the pertinent information. I don’t know. I do know that so far our “debate†has been an exercise in futility, and the Ostman discussion is no exception.

I made the sensible argument that Ostman may have gotten his idea of a sasquatch from contemporary sources like the yeti stories that were in the news and from the Roe account. The alleged “cone-shape†head of the yeti was well known by the public because of the yeti “scalps†examined by expedition members in the early 50s. Also, we know that Ostman read the Roe account before he (Ostman) went public with his account. Do I absolutely know that Ostman expressed his ideas based on the yeti and Roe? Of course not. All I am doing is offering a reasonable explanation and alternative to the Bigfoot enthusiasts’ portrayal of events.

Ostman said his encounter with a sasquatch family occurred in 1924. There is no record in the 1920’s, or later, of Ostman having recalled the story prior to 1957.

You take exception to my argument. You counter with essentially this: Ostman living in British Columbia in the 1920s would not be familiar with yeti accounts in Nepal but would be familiar with B.C. Indian lore.

You make a large error in your argument here. We are arguing about an account given in 1957, not 1924. Since we do not have a 1924 account to compare to the 1957 account, with are left only with the 1957 story, which is anchored in time in a world of yeti lore and the newly minted Roe account. So your assertion that Ostman would not be familiar with the yeti when he told his story is patently false.

Your argument is thus built on a false premise. In your reply you accuse me of this or that. I’m “guffawing†in the face of old “Bigfoot†accounts; I ought to be a politician; you’re sure I’m a “likable guy,†but still you’re “absolutely positively without a doubt gunning for [my] inaccurate revisionist stance on the myth of Bigfoot.†Since you’re “gunning†for my revisionism, I thought you might be gunning for me personally when two sentences later you opened “I’m pro kill Jerry…†Of coarse, I read your sentence further and realized you were talking about killing a sasquatch, not me.

THEN you finally get to my argument. And here is your set up: “Question…..according to your assumptions? Ostman concocted the story about a cone headed family of Sasquatch AFTER reading Roe’s account…..right?â€

And here is your takedown:

“So why does Roe’s Sasquatch picture his own daughter drew with his direction? LACK A CONICAL SHAPED HEAD?????? That head is flatter than mine is……she could probably balance a couple of encyclopedias up there!!!!!â€

Your rebuttal doesn't work. First, you overlook my yeti connection entirely. Second, the picture you presented drawn by Roe’s daughter was drawn one year AFTER Ostman’s story came out so it is irrelevant to your point. (According to enthusiast Chris Murphy concerning the daughter’s drawing: “There are, however, some discrepancies between the drawing and Roe’s verbal description.â€

Here is what Ostman describes concerning the young male sasquatch: “narrow forehead, that slanted upward round at the back about four or five inches.â€

Here is Roe’s briefer description: “The head was higher at the back than at the front.â€

I’ll address your other arguments in upcoming posts.

[Guest]

Norseman,

I think part of the problem with our exchanges lay in your comfortableness with the idea, or myth, of Bigfoot. As an enthusiast you are accustomed to the idea of giant bipedal apes, acclimated by your sources and other experiences. I know I was once. This leads to a certain blindness to the incredibleness of the idea that huge apes of unknown classification live in our country’s hinterland. You accuse me of being a revisionist of history, as if the Bigfoot enthusiast’s version of history is conventional and agreed upon. I submit it is the enthusiast who holds to a historical viewpoint that revisions history in the service of a singular belief ---- the belief in Bigfoot.

Critiquing Your Arguments

Bauman

When you are too accustomed to the Bigfoot storyline, the mundane becomes incredible and the incredible becomes mundane. Here is an argument you made during our discussion concerning the Bauman story.

Basically, you were implying that elements of the story suggest sasquatch and exclude other animals, like bear.

You state this element of the story supports what is reported today about Bigfoot: “They [bauman and friend) also report a strong harsh moan. Again today? Yes. And more importantly again, should two trappers know what sort of sounds a Bear makes? I’d hope so.â€

So I posted videos of bears making strong, harsh moans. One after being shot with an arrow, the other of two bears intimidating one another. I thought that I showed that bears do make harsh, deep moans.

You replied in part: “Did Bauman report shooting an arrow into one? Did he report two bears fighting?â€

Well, he did say they shot at it, but missed. Maybe they didn’t. Anyway, I guess bears never moan except when they have been shot or they are fighting? Right?

Anyway, you note “I‘ve set in a bear stand all night long many of times and I think I can say with experience that bears do not make loud moans into the night.â€

Somewhat later, in a different context, you tell me “I’m going to be nice and help you out here…..Timothy Treadwell lived with Brown bears for like 13 years and then one day, he and his girl friend were both killed and ate by one. 13 years…….think about that. He knew every fishing hole, every bear, every tree…..that’s a long time to camp in one spot. Animals are not the Borg…..they are individuals the same way we are. And then on top of disposition we have other factors going on, such as a bad mood, old age, hunger, etc. We think we get them all figured out, and then one day, they do the unexpected, and if caught not being prepared? A human can certainly pay the price for their folly.â€

Yes, you kindly helped me out. I’m not pointing this out because of the contradiction, but because you chose a more fantastic explanation for the Bauman story over a more mundane one. In fact, you made the more mundane explanation seem fantastic. Bears don’t moan in the night--they are predictable that way--but wait, they are unpredictable when the argument needs them to be.

Bottom line about the Bauman story. The mundane explanations are open to us: 1. Bauman’s story was just a tall tale expertly told (my view), or 2. Bauman’s story was an embellishment but based on a bear attack. Either one of these explanations should stand taller than the fantastic explanation that TR recorded an ape attack.

------

I noticed that you posted exchanges on the thread from the Wood Ape site. Instead of me trying to once again present my point of view only to get confusing responses from you, let’s try this.

You take various passages from my words, post them, and explain why you think my view is that there were no “ape-men†reports prior to the 1950s and that I argued that ape in the hinterland myth began with Green.

Or, just tell me succinctly what you think I am saying and then post my words that support your claim.

Let's get to the bottom of this.

[norseman]

I posted up our original NAWAC exchange to try to shed light on how you wanted to frame this debate. You are accusing me of imposing artificial rules into this debate that your not a party too. Fine.

 

What are we debating?

 

Are we debating the myth of Sasquatch from a Anglo North American perspective? Or does this indeed extend to Native American lore? Or are we debating the existence of a actual North American cryptid Ape?

 

As far as the Treadwell/Bauman contradiction you point to? 

 

I've never heard a Bear moan that wasn't feeling pain. In fact Bears are a very quiet non vocal species from a hunter's perspective. They are very cautious and very quiet. If attacked by one you may get a warning "woof" out of the deal or you may hear them clack their teeth when they are agitated. This is simply my experience with being a Bear hunter. If I heard loud moans ringing through the night over and over again, a Bear would be the last species I would think of. As I stated in our previous debates, I would assume if I was hearing that I would think of a Cougar first and foremost.

 

TImothy Treadwell's gory ending has nothing at all to do with Bear vocalizations. Bears indeed can ACT unpredictably and attack when you least expect it. Even "tame" Bears have killed their trainers, without provocation.

 

I'm not suggesting that a Bear is going to do anything but act and sound like a Bear. With that said, if you think you have a Bear figured out concerning his instincts to attack and consume you? Think again. And to a degree this goes for all wild animals...........but the vocalizations described in the Bauman story do not fit a Bear MO in my humble opinion. Nuff said.

 

On to my perspective on Sasquatch............

 

I do not know Sasquatch exists, I've never seen an actual animal that fits the description in all my years spent in the forest of the PacNW. I did however witness a set of tracks in snow that were rather compelling, with my father. So I guess I would describe myself as a mild proponent that accepts the POSSIBILITY that such an animal could exist, based on my past experience. I'm very strongly a pro kill proponent, if such a animal exists, then we should harvest one in the name of science, to settle this once and for all.

 

Now, concerning our debate, I have argued it from the standpoint of a myth only, and it's historical place in folk lore. How old is this myth? What characteristics are attributed to the myth? Who among either Anglo or Native (later) populations knew about the myth. I'm not advocating that the creature actually exists in this debate nor I'm I trying to sell you on the fact that everyone believed in the myth, lock, stock and barrel. I've never advocated that SCIENCE believed in the myth.............then or now. But in a mining or logging camp during the turn of the century? It's hard to say but I KNOW for a fact that myth was present...........as my own family were loggers in the Cascades during this time frame. I cannot use this family knowledge to advance my argument, because it's not documented. So I use other tools in my arsenal to debate you with, such as old newspaper articles, Indian lore, so forth and so on.

 

I also will extend to you that John Green was very important in advancing the myth into modern times...........but he did not invent the idea that Sasquatch was an Ape like creature. Nor did he invent the idea that Yeti like creature was roaming our forests only during the 1950's. It's an older idea than John Green. The idea's size and scope and veracity are open to conjecture.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that very impressionable people watch "finding bigfoot" on friday nights and go out and mimic what they saw on a weekend outing where ever they may be. This was simply not possible 50 years ago in John Green's time and especially not possible 100 years ago in my great grandfather's time. They did not even have TV at all, let alone a reality show based solely on investigating myths.

 

My great grandfather raised my mother in the town of Gold Bar, Washington. He was a logger and more specifically he operated a steam donkey used to pull logs to the landing.

 

 

This myth was known in the PacNW well before Green, and it was not believed to be a wild Indian...........but Ape like in nature. (hence how Ape canyon got it's name) Maybe the banker in down town Seattle did not know of the myth, but certainly the men working in the logging camps knew. Again how many actually believed it to be true? I would guess was a much smaller numbers than those that did not believe it to be anything but a hoax.

 

And as far as the rest of the country? I see old newspaper clippings from back east and read stories like Bauman and Thompson and shrug my shoulders. I think it's very probable that some people knew the myth and some probably even believed in the myth.

 

Either way, it's not going to destroy my world view one way or another as to whether the creature exists or not. I don't think it's impossible, but it's certainly improbable. But then again, during Green's time the scientific notion that Homo Erectus existed until very recently on a small island in Micronesia was improbable as well.

 

I've driven the length of British Columbia, I've hunted and fished in Alaska as well as the Rocky mountains and Cascade range. It's a very humbling experience, which leaves my mind open to the possibility of something out there that may yet be undiscovered.

 

I hope this clears up my background as well as explains why I've chosen to represent the proponent's side in this debate.

[Guest]

Norseman,

Concerning your argument about the Slick expeditions.

My contention is this: if sasquatch was such a well known phenomena, why would Slick spend his money traveling to the Himalayas looking for the yeti man-ape when he had a sasquatch ape-man in his own backyard to investigate? This seems like a common sense question. Surely, Slick would have been just as interested in a sasquatch as a yeti, maybe more so, had he known about it.

Your reply is this: “By four years? By following your own line of logic then? Did Tom Slick invest money for Sasquatch as well?â€

I’m not sure what your point is here. My point is that Slick mounted three very expensive expeditions for the yeti before he set off to search for the sasquatch. Why?

You then point to a statement about Peter Byrne and his beginning involvement with the sasquatch and the important part for you to impart to me. Byrne was told by Slick: “More to the point, and unlike the Yeti, the Pacific Northwest creatures, whatever they were, had a documented history that went back - via old newspaper and magazine articles, letters written by missionaries and miners and Native American lore -- for more than 300 years.â€

Check mate? I think not. My contention is not that one cannot find various and sundry ape man and wild man stories in newspaper accounts. My contention is that the modern myth of Bigfoot was born in the 1950s and 60s.

Think this through, Norseman. If Slick had the information about the “documented history†of the sasquatch back in, say 1955, why would he have mounted all those yeti expeditions first? If he believed North America was home to a yeti-like animal, why go to the Himalayas at all?

Byrne was still in the Himalayas when Slick cabled him to suspend operations, rest a week, and come to America to “ investigate a creature similar to the Yeti that purported lived in the vast forests of the Pacific Northwest.†Why the sudden suspension in the search for the yeti and the jump to the sasquatch?

The answer is within the Byrne article you quoted: “Again unlike the sparse evidence of the Yeti, there were, Slick told him, recent footprints finds and sightings; the footprints had been documented with plaster castings and the sightings were reported by reliable eyewitnesses.â€

What is being discussed here is obviously the Bluff Creek track ways and the Roe and Ostman sightings.

To my mind this episode confirms what I have been trying to convey. Here is how. Slick is excited about all the yeti news of the 1950s. He mounts expeditions to search for the elusive monster in 1957 and 1959. In the mean time, Green, Roe, Sanderson, Bluff Creek, etc. come into play and Slick becomes aware of a possible American Abominable Snowman. The linkage of the creature to old newspaper accounts and Indian lore has been made by early Bigfoot/sasquatch proponents like Green and Sanderson, and presented to a wide audience through Sanderson’s magazine articles and book. Slick takes it all in, maybe he is even contacted first by Sanderson or Green, and then in his excitement over the developments of the Roe/Ostman/Chapman accounts in B.C., and the documented tracks in California that Green has linked to the B.C. creatures, he mounts a new expedition in North America to look for a new monster.

(I wonder what Slick would have made of Texas Bigfoot stories, given he was Texan? There are now Bigfoot sightings alleged on the outskirts of San Antonio, Slick’s home city.)

[norseman]

Ok no feed back and now off on another tangent.

I still have no idea what you decided we are debating on.

Your answer is right there in Byrne's statement. Nepal came first because Nepal was a far away distant wild place......unexplored and mysterious. North America was mundane and mapped surely nothing existed here......

What you point to as proof? Is simply slick's own bias! He had heard of the myth he just did not take it seriously enough at first to throw money at it.

Also if Green was the foremost authority of the time for Sasquatch why did slick recall Byrne from Nepal? Why not leave Byrne there and give Green a call and make him expedition leader in North America ?

He was the Meldrum of his time right ? A ringer for the job.

[norseman]

Norseman,

Critiquing your ideas:

The Ostman Account --

You continue to argue from an odd perspective. Either you are harried, or maybe you just don’t have a grasp of the pertinent information. I don’t know. I do know that so far our “debate†has been an exercise in futility, and the Ostman discussion is no exception.

I made the sensible argument that Ostman may have gotten his idea of a sasquatch from contemporary sources like the yeti stories that were in the news and from the Roe account. The alleged “cone-shape†head of the yeti was well known by the public because of the yeti “scalps†examined by expedition members in the early 50s. Also, we know that Ostman read the Roe account before he (Ostman) went public with his account. Do I absolutely know that Ostman expressed his ideas based on the yeti and Roe? Of course not. All I am doing is offering a reasonable explanation and alternative to the Bigfoot enthusiasts’ portrayal of events.

Ostman said his encounter with a sasquatch family occurred in 1924. There is no record in the 1920’s, or later, of Ostman having recalled the story prior to 1957.

You take exception to my argument. You counter with essentially this: Ostman living in British Columbia in the 1920s would not be familiar with yeti accounts in Nepal but would be familiar with B.C. Indian lore.

You make a large error in your argument here. We are arguing about an account given in 1957, not 1924. Since we do not have a 1924 account to compare to the 1957 account, with are left only with the 1957 story, which is anchored in time in a world of yeti lore and the newly minted Roe account. So your assertion that Ostman would not be familiar with the yeti when he told his story is patently false.

Your argument is thus built on a false premise. In your reply you accuse me of this or that. I’m “guffawing†in the face of old “Bigfoot†accounts; I ought to be a politician; you’re sure I’m a “likable guy,†but still you’re “absolutely positively without a doubt gunning for [my] inaccurate revisionist stance on the myth of Bigfoot.†Since you’re “gunning†for my revisionism, I thought you might be gunning for me personally when two sentences later you opened “I’m pro kill Jerry…†Of coarse, I read your sentence further and realized you were talking about killing a sasquatch, not me.

THEN you finally get to my argument. And here is your set up: “Question…..according to your assumptions? Ostman concocted the story about a cone headed family of Sasquatch AFTER reading Roe’s account…..right?â€

And here is your takedown:

“So why does Roe’s Sasquatch picture his own daughter drew with his direction? LACK A CONICAL SHAPED HEAD?????? That head is flatter than mine is……she could probably balance a couple of encyclopedias up there!!!!!â€

Your rebuttal doesn't work. First, you overlook my yeti connection entirely. Second, the picture you presented drawn by Roe’s daughter was drawn one year AFTER Ostman’s story came out so it is irrelevant to your point. (According to enthusiast Chris Murphy concerning the daughter’s drawing: “There are, however, some discrepancies between the drawing and Roe’s verbal description.â€

Here is what Ostman describes concerning the young male sasquatch: “narrow forehead, that slanted upward round at the back about four or five inches.â€

Here is Roe’s briefer description: “The head was higher at the back than at the front.â€

I’ll address your other arguments in upcoming posts.

 

 

Your not a good reader evidently, as you conveniently slip past my main talking points and attack what you perceive to be my weak points.

 

What about Ostman's description of the Squatch's genitalia? Silence.

 

What about his sworn affidavit and questioning be police? Silence.

 

Roe and Ostman both went in and gave sworn affidavits. One in Edmonton, Alberta and the other in British Columbia. They were also 6 days apart. Ostman on the 20th and Roe on the 26th of August 1957.

 

Where is your information that Roe's daughter drew the picture one year after in 1958 and three years after her father's encounter?

 

Where is your information that Ostman was well acquainted with the myth of the Yeti?

 

If Green was so fascinated with the Yeti why didn't he go to Nepal?

 

http://www.bigfootproject.org/interviews/john_green.html

 

 

JG: Well, for one thing, the word "believe" really isn't appropriate. It's used all the time, but it's ridiculous. I encountered what would in any other case be considered solid evidence that there was something to this.

BIP: Was this the set of tracks that were found in Eureka?

JG: No, it was before that. In 1957 Harrison got a lot of publicity by proposing to have a sasquatch hunt during the BC centennial celebration. A fellow who worked for me was talking to the custodian at the high school named Esse Tyfting. This subject had become quite a topic of conversation. This man had seen the tracks at Ruby Creek back in 1941. I knew he was a well respected person so I went and talked to him. He described the tracks and even drew an outline of how he recalled them.

BIP: Unfortunately, there were no casts.

 

JG: There was a cast. By this time it no longer existed. It had been made by a deputy sheriff who had come up from Bellingham. A man who'd been investigating this. I don't know that much about him, but one of his children did tell us that he had a whole room full of material when he died, so he obviously was seriously investigating it. One of the family gave me a tracing of this cast that matched superficially the drawing that had been made by Esse. It was actually on the floor of a garage that he was building, so of course I didn't have it, but it appeared very similar to the tracing that I received a few months later from the deputy's family.

The other thing is that the local game guide was Jack Kirkman. His wife Martha was a cousin of Mrs. George Chapman who had seen the creature at Ruby Creek. The Kirkman's were friends of ours so I talked about it with them. She had said the experience had pretty well ruined her cousin's life. She had become an alcoholic and it was something she couldn't get over. Then I talked later on to Mr. and Mrs. Chapman, but I hadn't known them previously. It was the association with these two people who I did know, and of course in the newspaper business getting information from people and deciding if it was accurate is part of the job. These people seemed entirely credible. With regard to the footprints, we had contacted other people who had seen them since they required an explanation.

Then there were other accounts that came out because the Vancouver newspapers made a really big thing out of the sasquatch hunt idea. They literally had sasquatch included in their front page index for quite a few weeks. They were generating stories. One of those was a fellow from Vernon who had a sighting up near Flood between Chilliwack and Hope in 1955.

The other was a very detailed description by a fellow up at Tete Jaune Cache by the name of William Roe whom I later learned was in contact with a zoologist about Buffalo and was considered to be a very reliable and informed source. I never met Roe. He was living in Cloverdale at the time the story came out, but he moved to Edmonton very shortly afterward. He did send me a written account of what he had seen and he went to the city hall and had it attested to.

 

Who is the American deputy sheriff that was investigating Sasquatch and made a foot cast at Ruby creek in 1941?

[Guest]

I posted up our original NAWAC exchange to try to shed light on how you wanted to frame this debate. You are accusing me of imposing artificial rules into this debate that your not a party too. Fine.

 

What are we debating?

 

Are we debating the myth of Sasquatch from a Anglo North American perspective? Or does this indeed extend to Native American lore? Or are we debating the existence of a actual North American cryptid Ape?

 

As far as the Treadwell/Bauman contradiction you point to? 

 

I've never heard a Bear moan that wasn't feeling pain. In fact Bears are a very quiet non vocal species from a hunter's perspective. They are very cautious and very quiet. If attacked by one you may get a warning "woof" out of the deal or you may hear them clack their teeth when they are agitated. This is simply my experience with being a Bear hunter. If I heard loud moans ringing through the night over and over again, a Bear would be the last species I would think of. As I stated in our previous debates, I would assume if I was hearing that I would think of a Cougar first and foremost.

 

TImothy Treadwell's gory ending has nothing at all to do with Bear vocalizations. Bears indeed can ACT unpredictably and attack when you least expect it. Even "tame" Bears have killed their trainers, without provocation.

 

I'm not suggesting that a Bear is going to do anything but act and sound like a Bear. With that said, if you think you have a Bear figured out concerning his instincts to attack and consume you? Think again. And to a degree this goes for all wild animals...........but the vocalizations described in the Bauman story do not fit a Bear MO in my humble opinion. Nuff said.

 

On to my perspective on Sasquatch............

 

I do not know Sasquatch exists, I've never seen an actual animal that fits the description in all my years spent in the forest of the PacNW. I did however witness a set of tracks in snow that were rather compelling, with my father. So I guess I would describe myself as a mild proponent that accepts the POSSIBILITY that such an animal could exist, based on my past experience. I'm very strongly a pro kill proponent, if such a animal exists, then we should harvest one in the name of science, to settle this once and for all.

 

Now, concerning our debate, I have argued it from the standpoint of a myth only, and it's historical place in folk lore. How old is this myth? What characteristics are attributed to the myth? Who among either Anglo or Native (later) populations knew about the myth. I'm not advocating that the creature actually exists in this debate nor I'm I trying to sell you on the fact that everyone believed in the myth, lock, stock and barrel. I've never advocated that SCIENCE believed in the myth.............then or now. But in a mining or logging camp during the turn of the century? It's hard to say but I KNOW for a fact that myth was present...........as my own family were loggers in the Cascades during this time frame. I cannot use this family knowledge to advance my argument, because it's not documented. So I use other tools in my arsenal to debate you with, such as old newspaper articles, Indian lore, so forth and so on.

 

I also will extend to you that John Green was very important in advancing the myth into modern times...........but he did not invent the idea that Sasquatch was an Ape like creature. Nor did he invent the idea that Yeti like creature was roaming our forests only during the 1950's. It's an older idea than John Green. The idea's size and scope and veracity are open to conjecture.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that very impressionable people watch "finding bigfoot" on friday nights and go out and mimic what they saw on a weekend outing where ever they may be. This was simply not possible 50 years ago in John Green's time and especially not possible 100 years ago in my great grandfather's time. They did not even have TV at all, let alone a reality show based solely on investigating myths.

 

My great grandfather raised my mother in the town of Gold Bar, Washington. He was a logger and more specifically he operated a steam donkey used to pull logs to the landing.

 

 

This myth was known in the PacNW well before Green, and it was not believed to be a wild Indian...........but Ape like in nature. (hence how Ape canyon got it's name) Maybe the banker in down town Seattle did not know of the myth, but certainly the men working in the logging camps knew. Again how many actually believed it to be true? I would guess was a much smaller numbers than those that did not believe it to be anything but a hoax.

 

And as far as the rest of the country? I see old newspaper clippings from back east and read stories like Bauman and Thompson and shrug my shoulders. I think it's very probable that some people knew the myth and some probably even believed in the myth.

 

Either way, it's not going to destroy my world view one way or another as to whether the creature exists or not. I don't think it's impossible, but it's certainly improbable. But then again, during Green's time the scientific notion that Homo Erectus existed until very recently on a small island in Micronesia was improbable as well.

 

I've driven the length of British Columbia, I've hunted and fished in Alaska as well as the Rocky mountains and Cascade range. It's a very humbling experience, which leaves my mind open to the possibility of something out there that may yet be undiscovered.

 

I hope this clears up my background as well as explains why I've chosen to represent the proponent's side in this debate.

Thanks for the clarifying comments. I appreciate you expanding your point of view. However, I asked what you thought my views were in this “debate†and what comments of mine lead you to think that. Given you have virtually called me disingenuous makes me think that I wrote something that you have mistaken for something else.

So I will take two comments of mine that may be the cause of the malcontented way this exchange has gone.

“Ever wonder why, with the Jacko story, no one at the time said ‘hey, this is a young sasquatch or the ape native to these parts?’ The probable answer is that no one had any knowledge of indigenous apes. “

It seems that you are taking this statement to mean that I’m disallowing both old newspaper accounts and Native American beliefs concerning the “apes in the hinterland†idea. Once you provide the newspaper accounts and the Native American artifacts, my position is disproved.

I’m thinking differently. I’m looking at the Jacko story and wondering why the creature was not identified as a Bigfoot-like animal if such an animal was known to exist. The Jacko story occurred in what would later be the epicenter of sasquatch activity, B.C., so wouldn’t the creature be “known†there? Apparently, it wasn’t. Yes, it was thought an ape, the story goes, but why not an indigenous ape, or one of those “sasquatch people†known to live in the mountains?

I’ll hazard a guess as to what your thoughts would be about this. The Jacko story is a newspaper account of an apparent ape find in B.C. It was read by hundreds, if not thousands, of people, who were then exposed to the idea of an ape find in B.C. We then have a newspaper account showing that the idea of an ape in the hinterlands did not begin in the 1950s..

Even if we admit the story is a newspaper hoax, then you might still want to know why they chose an ape to write a phony story about. Implied in that question would be the thought that the account represents some knowledge of apes living in the area.

What I was and am thinking is that there are various reasons why ape stories pop up occasionally in old newspaper stories and that none of the stories were the CAUSE for the belief in sasquatch/Bigfoot exhibited by Green, Dahinden, Sanderson, Krantz, Patterson, etc., nor the direct inspiration for sightings that set off Bigfoot mania, Roe, Ostman, Patterson, etc., nor the inspiration for the tracks found at Bluff Creek. To me, for reasons stated upstream, the yeti is more important to the myth as it exists today, with a unique confluence of personalities and events in the 50s and 60s, than old accounts like Ape Canyon.

The second comment that has caused friction, I think, is this: “Even if you look at the Jerry Crew incident, which produced the term Bigfoot, at first no local folk had a clue as to who or what had left the tracks. Talk of a giant Indian kid, a nunaway from a 1930s’ CCC camp, bear, and even Lemurians from the caves of Mt. St. Helens were in the media. When John Green showed up, he linked the tracks to an animal he hypothesized existed in British Columbia too: a giant, bipedal ape, America’s version of the yeti; and the rest is history.â€

You have virtually lampooned this comment as a statement that John Green created Bigfoot. That was not my intention. After all, Green read the Roe statement, interviewed Ostman, sought out Chapman and otherwise was receiving information that he did not create. He also did not create the old newspaper accounts that he and others uncovered to give the sasquatch as he perceived it a history What he did was form a narrative from these materials that called for the sasquatch to be taken as a flesh and blood animal and not an Indian legend. When the Bluff Creek tracks were found, he went to investigate, believed they were real, and put a label on the animal he believed made them: sasquatch. He thereby linked the track maker to the stories of Roe and Ostman and the B.C. animal as he believed it, an ape.

The events in B.C. and California in the 1950s and 60s were superficially credible, seemed to mirror the yeti narrative, and made the idea of an American Abominable Snowman an exciting possibility for many people. The modern myth grew from that foundation to what we have today. My argument is not some radical interpretation of the facts, but I think, with modifications, probably the accepted version of non-enthusiasts.

I do agree with you that Patterson is more important than Green to the enduring interest in Bigfoot. And I don’t think Green alone was the impetus for the Bigfoot kick-start; I’ve named others important at the time as well.

These are my thoughts. If you care to “debate†them further, or exchange ideas with this fresh start, it’s OK with me.

[Guest]

Your not a good reader evidently, as you conveniently slip past my main talking points and attack what you perceive to be my weak points.

 

What about Ostman's description of the Squatch's genitalia? Silence.

 

What about his sworn affidavit and questioning be police? Silence.

 

Roe and Ostman both went in and gave sworn affidavits. One in Edmonton, Alberta and the other in British Columbia. They were also 6 days apart. Ostman on the 20th and Roe on the 26th of August 1957.

 

Where is your information that Roe's daughter drew the picture one year after in 1958 and three years after her father's encounter?

 

Where is your information that Ostman was well acquainted with the myth of the Yeti?

 

If Green was so fascinated with the Yeti why didn't he go to Nepal?

 

http://www.bigfootproject.org/interviews/john_green.html

 

 

JG: Well, for one thing, the word "believe" really isn't appropriate. It's used all the time, but it's ridiculous. I encountered what would in any other case be considered solid evidence that there was something to this.

BIP: Was this the set of tracks that were found in Eureka?

JG: No, it was before that. In 1957 Harrison got a lot of publicity by proposing to have a sasquatch hunt during the BC centennial celebration. A fellow who worked for me was talking to the custodian at the high school named Esse Tyfting. This subject had become quite a topic of conversation. This man had seen the tracks at Ruby Creek back in 1941. I knew he was a well respected person so I went and talked to him. He described the tracks and even drew an outline of how he recalled them.

BIP: Unfortunately, there were no casts.

 

JG: There was a cast. By this time it no longer existed. It had been made by a deputy sheriff who had come up from Bellingham. A man who'd been investigating this. I don't know that much about him, but one of his children did tell us that he had a whole room full of material when he died, so he obviously was seriously investigating it. One of the family gave me a tracing of this cast that matched superficially the drawing that had been made by Esse. It was actually on the floor of a garage that he was building, so of course I didn't have it, but it appeared very similar to the tracing that I received a few months later from the deputy's family.

The other thing is that the local game guide was Jack Kirkman. His wife Martha was a cousin of Mrs. George Chapman who had seen the creature at Ruby Creek. The Kirkman's were friends of ours so I talked about it with them. She had said the experience had pretty well ruined her cousin's life. She had become an alcoholic and it was something she couldn't get over. Then I talked later on to Mr. and Mrs. Chapman, but I hadn't known them previously. It was the association with these two people who I did know, and of course in the newspaper business getting information from people and deciding if it was accurate is part of the job. These people seemed entirely credible. With regard to the footprints, we had contacted other people who had seen them since they required an explanation.

Then there were other accounts that came out because the Vancouver newspapers made a really big thing out of the sasquatch hunt idea. They literally had sasquatch included in their front page index for quite a few weeks. They were generating stories. One of those was a fellow from Vernon who had a sighting up near Flood between Chilliwack and Hope in 1955.

The other was a very detailed description by a fellow up at Tete Jaune Cache by the name of William Roe whom I later learned was in contact with a zoologist about Buffalo and was considered to be a very reliable and informed source. I never met Roe. He was living in Cloverdale at the time the story came out, but he moved to Edmonton very shortly afterward. He did send me a written account of what he had seen and he went to the city hall and had it attested to.

 

Who is the American deputy sheriff that was investigating Sasquatch and made a foot cast at Ruby creek in 1941?

Ostman said the “old man†had a two inch long penis that was hooded. I’m not sure why you find this important. I know that some enthusiasts believe that Ostman would have made his sasquatch well-endowed had he just made up the story in his mind. That is a supposition. Ostman did not include this fact in his original telling of the tale, but gave it after questioning from enthusiasts. That he would say his sasquatch was uncircumcised is not remarkable. That he would say his sasquatch is short-johnnied is not remarkable. The idea behind your bringing this issue up is that the “funnel†shaped penis would imply to some that the sasquatch had a “penis bone†and thus was an ape, not a human. However, Ostman never calls what he saw apes and implies they are human, in accord with the Indian idea of sasquatch as revealed by Burns.

I think it is naïve to think a tall-tale artist would not successfully sign an affidavit or be questioned by police, especially since he has already committed his story to ink.

My information about the timing of Roe’s daughter’s drawing. Let me step back a bit. I said she drew her picture after Ostman’s story was published. I should have said her picture was published after Ostman. I based this on a source I gleaned on the net. If you find something to the contrary, let me know.

To ask me for my information about Ostman being well acquainted with yeti reports is like asking me for information about any American John Doe of the late 1950s knowing about Elvis. I assume it because there was at that time great interest in the yeti, since 1951 and the Shipton find, especially in English speaking countries, and especially in countries of the British Commonwealth.

“If Green was so fascinated with the Yeti, why didn’t he go to Nepal.†I don’t think a newspaper editor for a provincial newspaper would have the finances or expertise to mount an expedition to the Himalayas. But that is not my point. I never said Green was fascinated with the yeti. Maybe he was, maybe not. I’m saying that the yeti as a mysterious ape-like creature was “background noise,†or water cooler talk, barber shop fodder for conversation, found in newspaper op-eds, etc. (In my second grade class in the early 1960s, my teacher, trying to dissuade my enthusiasm for the Abominable Snowman, brought up a World Book Annual that recounted the Hillary expedition that “debunked†the yeti myth.) Green, no matter what his excitement level over the yeti, certainly was of the opinion that he was on the cusp of garnering recognition for the existence of the sasquatch, a creature he had just recently himself come to believe existed.

Your extended quotes from a fairly recent Green interview I had read before. I’m not sure what your points are. I don’t see anything in that that rebuts what I have been saying. Maybe you see it differently.

Green says he encountered “solid evidence†for the existence of the creature in question that led him to think “that there was something to this.†Was it the tracks at Bluff Creek? No. It was a tracing of a print (previously cast, but the cast no longer existed) made at Ruby Creek in 1941.

This confirms what I have been saying. Green changed his mind based on Ruby Creek (and Roe and Ostman.) When he came across the tracks at Bluff Creek, he linked them to the tracing from Ruby Creek as coming from the same type of animal.

Here, though, is where things get odd. The Ruby Creek tracing really doesn’t look like the same type of track left at Bluff Creek. Green says they are a match based on size alone. The discrepancy between the actual shape of the tracks has led to a fairly recent controversy:

http://www.cryptozoonews.com/faux-bf/

A note, Norseman. I am looking at your posts individually, copy some of them, and respond to this one or that one. This may put me behind, or forward, or out, in our exchanges. Sorry if this causes a confusion or frustration. It is my style during protracted discussions. Otherwise, I feel, rapid responses lead to more confusions and mistaking of arguments.

[norseman]

The point I'm trying to make is that there was a deputy sheriff who had amassed considerable evidence and was casting tracks from Bellingham. And had cast a supposed Sasquatch track in 1941 at Ruby creek.

 

Does this not sound like a modern day investigator? 

 

I think this shows there was a much stronger belief of apes in the hinterland than what your given credit for prior to Green.

[Guest]

The point I'm trying to make is that there was a deputy sheriff who had amassed considerable evidence and was casting tracks from Bellingham. And had cast a supposed Sasquatch track in 1941 at Ruby creek.

 

Does this not sound like a modern day investigator? 

 

I think this shows there was a much stronger belief of apes in the hinterland than what your given credit for prior to Green.

He investigated the Ruby Creek incident. Not sure, but I think I recall he was skeptical at first. In any event, it hasn't been established whether he thought he was looking at ape evidence, or sasquatch evidence. Ms. Chapman said she saw a sasquatch. I know you disagree with the tribe of sasquatch concept, but that doesn't mean an investigator in 1941 was thinking ape, as you are. We just don't know.

When we first began this, I thought I might have suffered a minor stroke and was writing gibberish, given your strident resistance to my arguments and your characterization of them as some kind of far out revision, so far out of line that you were compelled to go "gunning" for such nonsense. But, after reading around the web I've found that the line of reasoning I've employed is common, with modification, even by enthusiasts. Here is a page from Gian Quasar, who believes in sasquatch and disbelieves in Bigfoot:

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/sasquatch-bigfoot.html

Here is an excerpt from a folklore journalist:

http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/079790.html

[norseman]

Most of that article we have already debated......

But I find it odd that he feels that Bigfoot is a hoax while Sasquatch is real. Or that the two are somehow separate entities to begin with.

Obviously if Bigfoot is a hoax they must have patterned it after Sasquatch. And not the white mans version of it being a giant Indian with braids.

They also go after the Bossburg tracks as if they are somehow involved with the California Bigfoot.

I find the whole article strange and "thou protesteth too much" in caliber.

The point being is that we had a Bona fide non Canadian squatch researcher all the way back in 1941. I think this demonstrates the publics awareness about the myth prior to greens involvement.

Edited September 23, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

Most of that article we have already debated......

But I find it odd that he feels that Bigfoot is a hoax while Sasquatch is real. Or that the two are somehow separate entities to begin with.

Obviously if Bigfoot is a hoax they must have patterned it after Sasquatch. And not the white mans version of it being a giant Indian with braids.

They also go after the Bossburg tracks as if they are somehow involved with the California Bigfoot.

I find the whole article strange and "thou protesteth too much" in caliber.

The point being is that we had a Bona fide non Canadian squatch researcher all the way back in 1941. I think this demonstrates the publics awareness about the myth prior to greens involvement.

I posted Quasar because of his comments on the yeti. He gets that part right, I think. You really can't underestimate the importance of the yeti to the modern Bigfoot myth.

I find Quasar fun because he has come up with a new take on all of this. Here is his idea of what a sasquatch foot would look like:

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/RBmockup2.JPG

He bases this on the single Ruby Creek print tracing.

And guess what creature left such a track?:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/files/2012/10/MONTANDON_1929_ameranthropoides_loysi.jpg

Yep. He thinks the ameranthropoides loysi is sasquatch. He believes it isn't an ape. It is a laterally evolved, giant anthropoid monkey, migrating from South America. He does allow for two "tribes" of sasquatch, though. The other is Neanderthal, migrating over the Asian/American land bridge.

To your comments. I'm wondering why you seem confident that the 1941 investigator was thinking "ape." Can you say every mention of sasquatch is the equivalent of a mention of apes. Especially given that Indians themselves were speaking to and of sasquatch as humans. I agree, your argument about Indians not knowing what apes were is commonsense, but to a degree. Are you going to say First Nation peoples in the 1920s to the 1950s didn't know what apes were and continued to see sasquatch as humans?

What do you make of the Paulides interview with contemporary First Nation people? Here are a couple of sketches Paulides commissioned from a police forensics officer (H. Platt) who interviewed the eyewitnesses. One looks like a hair covered human. The other a classic "caveman."

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2010/03/new-harvey-pratt-sketches-and-c2c.html

When you read about the Ape Canyon incident, do you think it really happened? Do you think the miners were attacked by a group of Bigfoot?

Edited September 25, 2013 by jerrywayne

[norseman]

jerrywayne, on 24 Sept 2013 - 7:01 PM, said:

I posted Quasar because of his comments on the yeti. He gets that part right, I think. You really can't underestimate the importance of the yeti to the modern Bigfoot myth.

I find Quasar fun because he has come up with a new take on all of this. Here is his idea of what a sasquatch foot would look like:

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/RBmockup2.JPG

He bases this on the single Ruby Creek print tracing.

And guess what creature left such a track?:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/files/2012/10/MONTANDON_1929_ameranthropoides_loysi.jpg

Yep. He thinks the ameranthropoides loysi is sasquatch. He believes it isn't an ape. It is a laterally evolved, giant anthropoid monkey, migrating from South America. He does allow for two "tribes" of sasquatch, though. The other is Neanderthal, migrating over the Asian/American land bridge.

To your comments. I'm wondering why you seem confident that the 1941 investigator was thinking "ape." Can you say every mention of sasquatch is the equivalent of a mention of apes. Especially given that Indians themselves were speaking to and of sasquatch as humans. I agree, your argument about Indians not knowing what apes were is commonsense, but to a degree. Are you going to say First Nation peoples in the 1920s to the 1950s didn't know what apes were and continued to see sasquatch as humans?

What do you make of the Paulides interview with contemporary First Nation people? Here are a couple of sketches Paulides commissioned from a police forensics officer (H. Platt) who interviewed the eyewitnesses. One looks like a hair covered human. The other a classic "caveman."

When you read about the Ape Canyon incident, do you think it really happened? Do you think the miners were attacked by a group of Bigfoot?

At this stage of the game you seem to be just playing different stages of "gotcha". So one Squatch researcher think's it's not an ape at all but a giant monkey, how does this strengthen your position? If Sasquatch is real? We have no idea what it is until one is laying on a examining table.

Native Americans never saw Sasquatch as truly human, we have gone over this multiple times.............their descriptive names for the creature bear this out. Most names include "Wild", "Hairy", "Giant", "Cannibal" and "Devil" and yes "Man". Their myths do not include having pow wows with them as they did other tribes, they saw them as scary, brutish, sneaky, wild and above all downright dangerous. But they had two arms, two legs and walked like men.........but that's where the similarities ended.

Paulides thinks he is dealing with a type of relic hominid. And he may very well be proven correct some day.........or not (I say no, because they exhibit no actions that warrant that description). This has nothing to do with our discussion. Nobody thinks we are dealing with a fellow Homo Sapiens Sapiens running naked around in the woods, with no tools, fire or shelter. That is covered in hair, 8 feet tall and has a 16 inch foot.......... are we on the same page?

Fred Beck's story is rather far fetched, I don't know what to make of it. But if we are dealing with just another tribe of Indians? Why didn't they just burn the miners out? And konk them on the heads as they exit the burning cabin? People describe rock throwing as a common Squatch trait, so the story isn't out of line there. But whatever. The main thrust of this story that you must parry is why did miners in the cascades think they were being attacked by apes? Long before the news of the Yeti broke to the west, and before Green was even born............

If that story broke today and the finding bigfoot team went up into the mountains and found some tracks in the vicinity of the cabin, it would be all the rage........that's were technology comes in like I've been discussing with you. People from all over the planet would read of it within days.

Back then? Yes of course it was newspaper worthy probably on a regional level and that was that..........but that doesn't support your Yeti>Green>ape invention hypothesis either.

I have no idea who this Squatch investigator was back in the forties........but if he was investigating Ruby creek?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/ruby.htm

Where would he get the idea that he was dealing with an ape?

They thought it was a cow, then a bear (sound familiar?) and then a 7.5 ft tall hairy giant..........that had a small head, no neck and very long arms. It also reportedly lifted a 55 gallon barrel of fish.......not human like qualities would you agree?

If she thought this was a tall Indian? Why didn't she greet him at the door?

Let's say for the sake of discussion that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is a real creature roaming the forests. From a scientific standpoint what traits do they reportedly exhibit that would make you think we were dealing with a fellow Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Do they reportedly flake stone? The hand axe is over one million years old. Do they make fire? Our genus has been making fire for hundreds of thousands of years. If they were just another tribe of Indian? Why weren't they shooting flaming arrow's at Beck's cabin? Why did the miner's claim they were attacked by apes? Why didn't Mrs. Chapman open her front door and invite this "tall Indian" into her home?

Surely you can see the discrepancies between what is reported then, and what your claiming Sasquatch was prior Green's involvement.

Edited September 25, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

At this stage of the game you seem to be just playing different stages of "gotcha". So one Squatch researcher think's it's not an ape at all but a giant monkey, how does this strengthen your position? If Sasquatch is real? We have no idea what it is until one is laying on a examining table.

Native Americans never saw Sasquatch as truly human, we have gone over this multiple times.............their descriptive names for the creature bear this out. Most names include "Wild", "Hairy", "Giant", "Cannibal" and "Devil" and yes "Man". Their myths do not include having pow wows with them as they did other tribes, they saw them as scary, brutish, sneaky, wild and above all downright dangerous. But they had two arms, two legs and walked like men.........but that's where the similarities ended.

Paulides thinks he is dealing with a type of relic hominid. And he may very well be proven correct some day.........or not (I say no, because they exhibit no actions that warrant that description). This has nothing to do with our discussion. Nobody thinks we are dealing with a fellow Homo Sapiens Sapiens running naked around in the woods, with no tools, fire or shelter. That is covered in hair, 8 feet tall and has a 16 inch foot.......... are we on the same page?

Fred Beck's story is rather far fetched, I don't know what to make of it. But if we are dealing with just another tribe of Indians? Why didn't they just burn the miners out? And konk them on the heads as they exit the burning cabin? People describe rock throwing as a common Squatch trait, so the story isn't out of line there. But whatever. The main thrust of this story that you must parry is why did miners in the cascades think they were being attacked by apes? Long before the news of the Yeti broke to the west, and before Green was even born............

If that story broke today and the finding bigfoot team went up into the mountains and found some tracks in the vicinity of the cabin, it would be all the rage........that's were technology comes in like I've been discussing with you. People from all over the planet would read of it within days.

Back then? Yes of course it was newspaper worthy probably on a regional level and that was that..........but that doesn't support your Yeti>Green>ape invention hypothesis either.

I have no idea who this Squatch investigator was back in the forties........but if he was investigating Ruby creek?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/ruby.htm

Where would he get the idea that he was dealing with an ape?

They thought it was a cow, then a bear (sound familiar?) and then a 7.5 ft tall hairy giant..........that had a small head, no neck and very long arms. It also reportedly lifted a 55 gallon barrel of fish.......not human like qualities would you agree?

If she thought this was a tall Indian? Why didn't she greet him at the door?

Let's say for the sake of discussion that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is a real creature roaming the forests. From a scientific standpoint what traits do they reportedly exhibit that would make you think we were dealing with a fellow Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Do they reportedly flake stone? The hand axe is over one million years old. Do they make fire? Our genus has been making fire for hundreds of thousands of years. If they were just another tribe of Indian? Why weren't they shooting flaming arrow's at Beck's cabin? Why did the miner's claim they were attacked by apes? Why didn't Mrs. Chapman open her front door and invite this "tall Indian" into her home?

Surely you can see the discrepancies between what is reported then, and what your claiming Sasquatch was prior Green's involvement.

I think Quasar’s ideas are refreshing and ridiculous; refreshing because he brings something unexpected to the table, and ridiculous because he builds his case on little, if any, evidence. My intention in revealing his surprising candidate for sasquatch to you was not for a “gotcha†moment at all. It was to share a (really) different perspective with you for no other reason than that both of us have an interest in the subject.

Your claim that Native Americans saw sasquatch as less than human may be true in some cases, but certainly not all cases. If I am wrong, and you may correct me, you have yet to give an answer for the First Nation eyewitness accounts that have Indian interaction with sasquatch speaking local Indian dialects, or stories about a congress of the sasquatch people meeting every so many years, known to local Indians by visible sasquatch campfires seen high up in the mountains.. These portrayals are more than animals. You also have failed to explain why contemporary Native Americans do not see sasquatch as an ape, even though they know what an ape is. This is contrary to your assertion that their ancestors said sasquatch were humans because they hadn’t any frame of reference for apes.

You are applying common sense here, I admit: First Nations peoples could not really be referring to sasquatch “people†because they were not describing just giant versions of Indians. Sasquatch didn’t wear clothes, have bows and arrows, didn’t pow-wow with other Indians and so forth. I suppose this is a true, with exceptions, but it leaves the puzzling fact that Indians did claim to interact with sasquatch by exchanging human language.

This is not the place to enter into a lengthy discussion about folklore, so let me suffice it to mention this: Many, many cultures in the world have their versions of “wild man†and “Hairy Giant†stories. It is thought that such stories are so fundamental they represent cross-cultural, inner reflections of what defines the boundaries between humans and the wildness of nature. It is easy to see why such lore would evolve a “hairy man†concept, given that one obvious attribute that seems to separate us from animal life is the absence of a covering body hair or fur. If we project onto our lore a story-telling that reflects the tenuous boundary between man and wild nature, then the creature reflecting the edge of that boundary would be without civilization, feral, and hirsute.

Whether or not you would accept a folkloric account of sasquatch, and I doubt you will, it does explain why we have stories of “Hairy Giants†that are animalistic but not animals. This would explain why First Nation peoples’ lore included “sasquatch people,†a tribe unclothed and without tool use, hairy and brutish.

In any event, here is a news item from 1924, July 16th, the Oregonian.

------------------------------------------------------------

“BIG HAIRY INDIANS BACK OF APE TALE - MOUNTAIN DEVILS' MYSTERY GROWS DEEPER - GIANTS SAID TO ROAM HILLS - SHAGGY CREATURES KILL GAME BY HYPNOTISM, IT IS SAID - VENTRILOQUISM IS USED - REDMEN'S EDITOR AT HOQUIAM GIVES THEORY OF REPORTED ATTACK AT SPIRIT LAKE

BY JORG TOTSGI, CLALLAM TRIBE, Editor of the Real American, Hoquiam Washington.

HOQUIAM, Wash., July 15. --- (Special.) --- The big apes reported to have bombarded a shack of prospectors at Mount St. Helens, are recognized by Northwestern Indians as none other than the Seeahtik Tribe of Indians. Seeahtik is a Clallam pronunciation. All other tribes of the Northwest pronounce it Seeahtkeh. Northwestern Indians have long kept the history of the Seeahtik Tribe a secret, because the tribe is the skeleton in the Northwestern Indians' closet. Another reason the Indians have never divulged the existence of this tribe is that the Northwestern Indians know the white man would not believe the stories regarding the Seeahtik Tribe.

These facts are corroborated by Henry Napoleon, Clallam Tribe; L.J. James, Lummi Tribe; George Hyasman, Quinault Tribe.

GAME KILLED BY HYPNOTISM

Every Indian, especially of the Puget Sound Tribes, is familiar with the history of these strange giant Indians, as they are sometimes referred to by local Indians. Shaker Indians of Northwestern Oregon, who attended the Shakers' convention on the Skokomish Reservation on Hood Canal last year, related to the writer their experience with the Seeahtik Indians.

Oregon and Washington Indians agree that the Seeahtik Indians are not less than seven feet tall and some have been seen that were fully eight feet in height. They have hairy bodies like a bear. This is to protect them from the cold as they live entirely in the mountains. They kill their game entirely by hypnotism. They have great supernatural powers. They also have the gift of ventriloquism, and have deceived many ordinary Indians by throwing their voices.

SEVERAL LANGUAGES USED

These Indians talk, beside the bear language of the Clallam Tribe and the bird language. The writer was told by Oregon Indians during his research work among them last year that the Seeahtik Tribe can imitate any bird of the Northwest, especially the bluejay, and that they have a very keen sense of smell. Oregon Indians at times have been greatly humiliated by the Seeahtiks' vulgar sense of humor.

The Seeahtiks play practical jokes upon them and steal their Indian Women. Sometimes an Indian Woman comes back. More often she does not, and it is even said by some Northwestern Indians that they have a strain of the Seeahtik blood in them. Oregon and Washington Indians differ in regard to the Seeahtiks' home. The Oregon Indians assert they made their home in or near Mount Rainier, while the Puget Sound Indians say they live in the heart of the wilderness at Vancouver Island, B.C.

"BIG BEAR" SPEAKS

Henry Napoleon of the Clallam Tribe came upon one of the members of the Seeahtik Tribe while out hunting on Vancouver Island. He related this story to the writer:

"I had been visting relatives near Duncan, B.C. and while there I had been told many stories of the Seeahtiks by the Cowichan Tribe of British Columbia and warned by them not to go too far into the wilderness. However, in following a buck I had wounded I went in farther than I expected. It was at twilight when I came across an animal that I believed to be a big bear but as I aimed at him with my gun he looked and spoke to me in my own tongue. He was about seven feet tall and his body was very hairy. As he invited me to sit down, he told me that I had come upon him unaware and that his mind had been projected to distant relatives of his, otherwise he (Mr. Napolean) would never have been seen."

STRANGE MEDICINE USED

"After we talked for some time he invited me to the Seeahtik's home. Though it was now dark, yet the giant Indian followed the trail very easily; then we began an underground trail and after hours of travel we came to a large cave, which he said was the home of his people, and that they lived during the winter in the different caves on Vancouver Island.

He also told me that the reason they were not seen very much was because they had a strange medicine that they rubbed over their bodies so that it made them invisible and that combined with their wha-ktee-nee-sing or hypnotic powers, made them very strong Tamanaweis men. They also told me that they could talk almost any Indian language of the Northwest. The next day they led me out and just at twilight I came out of the underground trail and they accompanied me to within a mile of the Indian village I was staying at."

TRIBE HELD HARMLESS

The Seeahtik Tribe is harmless if left alone. However, if one of their members is injured or killed they generally take 12 lives for the one. This the Indians of the Northwest have learned, and even though the Seeahtik Tribe steal all their dried meat or salmon, or even steal their women, the Puget Sound Indians will not try to retaliate, for once the Clallam Tribe in righteous indignation captured a young man of the Seeahtik Tribe at Seabeck Wash., and took him across the Hood Canal to Brinnon, where other Clallam Indians were camped.

Kwainchtun, the writer's own grandfather, kept telling the Clallams to be careful of the Seeahtik's supernatural powers, but he was only laughed at. It was later told by Kwainchtun, that while they were still 20 yards from the shore the young Seeahtik made a mighty leap and immediately made for the mountains.

CLALLAMS ARE KILLED

Kwainchtun warned his people that they should move but again he was laughed at. That very night the Seeahtik Tribe came down and killed every Clallam there but Kwainchtun, who had moved his family across the canal. The Oregon and Washington Indians of the present believed that the Seeahtik Tribe was just about extinct, as it was 15 years ago since their tracks were last seen and recognized at Brinnon, Wash., where the giant Indians came every Fall to fish for salmon in the Brinnon River.

However, Fred Pope of the Quinault Tribe and George Hyasman were fishing for steelheads about 15 miles up the Quinault River, one day in September four years ago, when they were visited by Seeahtik Indians. Mr. Hyasman said he heard and recognized their peculiar whistling before they approached us and in the morning we found that they had stolen all the steelheads we had caught. Therefore, the Indians of the Northwest after reading an account of the "big apes" attacking a prospector's shack immediately recognized the Indians referred to in The Oregonian as the Seeahtiks, or giant Indians.

Some Indians of the Northwest say that during the process of evolution, when the Indian was changing from animal to man that the Seeahilk did not absorb the "Tamanaweis" or soul power, and thus he became an anomaly in the Indian's process of evolution.

Their sence of humor is vulgar and obscene as many ordinary Indians have told the writer, therefore, the Northwestern Indian is ashamed of this tribe, which is generally referred to as the skeleton in the Northwestern Indian's closet.â€

-------------

Do you think the Indians mentioned in this article believe the “apes†said to attack the miners ARE apes, or do you think they believe the attackers are something else? Do you accept all the various attributes given to the Seeahtik tribe as factual? Do you think their stories about the giant, hairy ones are literally true, partially true, or not really true?

I'll get to Ruby Creek and Beck later.