Bauman Story

[southernyahoo]

If, as you claim, bigfoot was commonly known to frontiersmen and/or trappers, why aren't there bigfoot furs on record?  It seems odd that out of all the animals in America, bigfoot is the only one not hunted for its fur. 

 

 

Great apes and humans don't have fur. No undercoat. Lots of the old reports were in newspapers relating wildman encounters.

[Rockape]

I don't see how anyone could say the creature in the Bauman story doesn't correlates with what we now call Big Foot. Doesn't mean it is, but it does sound like one.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Rockape

[Guest]

The Ape Canyon story is my favorite and was retold in the 1978? movie "Sasquatch: The Legend Of Bigfoot" and gave me bad dreams for many years( saw the movie at the theater when I was around 10 yrs. old!) Back in the day they would  show a cartoon or even the PGF before the main feature! 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I would like to write a brief synopsis of this story, responding to various aspects of it as I go along, offering my explanations for what I believed to have occurred. I think that the fact that sasquatch was associated so frequently with ghosts and goblins offers a testament to the validity of stories like this. Why? Mainly because to me it seems that these people did not know what was going on, but they knew something was going on, and therefore what else could they attribute it to except ghosts and goblins?  I mean for someone who knows nothing of the behavior of bigfoot, some of the things they do can easily be taken as "supernatural," especially when the animal is never seen in the first place. Even their "howls" can be bone-chilling.

 

Had they known that there was a big, hairy, tall animal out there, which was just that, an animal, the stories would have come down to us much differently. Similarly today there are certain witnesses are scarred for life because they are not expecting such animals to exist. So while it is still hard for many to buy the idea of the existence of these animals, such was also the case at the point in time of the story, but mainly because people simply hadn't heard of bigfoot.

 

The half-eaten prospector tale, even if true, does not necessarily imply anything nefarious, or anything having to do with bigfoot. The man may have had a heart-attack for all we know, and no matter how he died, we can be certain that the animals of the forest would have set upon the remains fairly quickly after death. But it would have had to have been overnight, as the story states they had passed through his camp the previous night. So it must have occurred within at least 18 hours, or maybe less. Considering the body was only "half" eaten, maybe this was the work of something other than sasquatch. Without a better description however, this aspect of the story leaves much wanting in the way of information.

 

The area in which this story takes place is described in detail, and it seems to me the perfect location for sasquatch to frequent. As stated, the whole of the surrounding area was almost impassable, clogged up not only by the trees and brush, but also many fallen trees and debris. The forest sounds mainly coniferous, and these types of trees often leave the forest floor littered with their leaves and needles. The area of their camp was one of many open, grassy areas, distributed throughout the dense woodland. There were many animal signs around as well. This sounds absolutely perfect for a sasquatch. Secluded areas, that are difficult to travel through, in which is to be found plenty of food. 

 

Some may be wondering why a sasquatch would destroy a camp like this, considering that from what we know today this is not all that common. One may be apt to think this behavior more indicative of a bear, and all things considered, it must have been one of three things. A bear, a sasquatch, or a human. This is because the footprints found, coupled with how the camp was destroyed, just about eliminates every other animal in the forest. There are smaller animals, like a raccoon  that will behave in such a messy manner, but obviously their small tracks would not be mistaken with the larger tracks that were found. And out of all the animals in the forest, the only tracks that look remotely similar to human and sasquatch tracks are those of a bear, usually because they are not perfectly impressed into the dirt, and therefore are slightly distorted. Claw marks are usually an indication that was is seen is not a sasquatch or human print, but sometimes claw marks will also be absent from bear prints.

 

But as I was saying, why would a sasquatch destroy a camp, when it seemingly has nothing to gain from such behavior. The most obvious answer, at first glance, may be that it was looking for food. And this may have been the case, however the destruction of the lean-to, as well as the other desolation throughout the camp, would imply that there actually was some other intent in mind. I personally believe that a sasquatch would have done this for one main reason...It did not like or appreciate the fact that people had come into its den of solitude. As described earlier, the surrounding area was a perfect abode for a sasquatch, having all that it needed in food, water, etc., and having what it wanted in solitude. A sasquatch, choosing such a secluded area far away from people, would obviously be angered by the fact that two humans not only entered the area, but had also apparently established themselves there by setting up a camp.

 

A sasquatch would not know how long these people were planning on staying, especially if it were a sasquatch that was not used to humans at all. Today a sasquatch may choose to simply vacate an area, as opposed to destroying a human camp in an obvious gesture of self-defense, if and only if it were accustomed to the fact that humans are likely to stay in the area for a night or two. Knowing that the people would soon leave, a sasquatch would be put at ease from this understanding. But lacking such an understanding, a sasquatch would likely respond in a territorial manner, and this is what I think this particular story is describing. It makes sense from what I know of sasquatch, and I what I suspect to be true concerning their mode of living.

 

So the men go to sleep after picking up their things and reestablishing their lean-to. I presume that the sasquatch was quite displeased to learn that these two men were still in the area, as it very well could have thought that its gesture of ill-will was to be taken as a sign of their being unwelcome. So it comes back at night and stands in the opening of their lean-to. What it was doing, or why it would do this, I cannot really say. Maybe it was trying to figure out what it should do to get them to leave. Maybe it was trying to scare them, but it did not seem to try to wake them up. Maybe it thought that by its presence, it could scare them into leaving. Maybe to the sasquatch, it was standing its ground in a sense, during the night, which is more of "their" time to begin with. So what would have been going through the head of this animal at this particular time is difficult to fathom. But it is easier to conclude that once the rifle went off, the animal was frightened to a large degree, and quickly ran off. I doubt it knew that it was being "shot" at, although it may have had previous experiences with firearms by watching them at a distance, but regardless, the loud noise alone would be sufficient to frighten it away. This is backed up by more modern sighting reports, and there is even a video of a sasquatch watching some people shoot rifles. It was in the background behind some cover, and if I remember correctly there was a smaller caliber weapon being shot, which did not produce that loud of a noise. But then a larger, more noisy caliber weapon was fired, and this seemed to have scared the sasquatch, who quickly began to move out of its cover, probably to leave the area. It could have been expecting a much quieter sound, and was startled by the volume of the shot that it was expecting. Whatever the case may be, the sasquatch in the Bauman encounter was scared away for the remainer of the night, for all we know, unless it hung about the fringes of the camp to scope out what was going on, probably still slightly confused to a small degree.

 

The men leave the next morning, and come back to find their camp again destroyed. From the description in the text, I believe that the animal did an even greater number on their camp this second time. And this part of the story gives us an even greater understanding as to why the sasquatch may have wanted to defend this area in the first place...Aside from the clearing among the forest, and aside from the availability of game, the text tells us there is a brook running right there. This may have been one of the few clearings among the thick brush that allowed for access to the water source. And it is obvious why this would be important to an animal like a sasquatch. 

 

And out of their lack of understanding, or their stupidity, these two men decided to again spend another night at this location...The animal again shows up during the night, but only approaches to the other side of the running brook. From this location the animal makes noises that are described as being quite sinister. It was likely that the sasquatch was doing what sasquatch still do today...Vocalize in an effort to intimidate, or basically complaining because they do not like the fact that people are in "its" area. 

 

And by this point in time the men are certain that they are not dealing with a bear.The tracks alone were enough to ensure them of this. Seeing as how they had a large fire on this night, the animal was kept at bay, and this is likely the main reason as to why. With no fire on the previous night, and no guard, the animal was more brazen. Or possibly it was still afraid because of the loud gunshot it encountered the last time it had entered the camp near the men. 

 

So the next morning they decide to vacate the area after collecting their traps. They are covertly followed by at least one sasquatch, presumably the one from their previous encounters. They are presumably quite on edge by this point. And the author makes it quite clear that such men, accustomed to spending the majority of their time in the wilderness, are not apt to get scared over anything. So this is just another aspect that suggests they were dealing with something that was not a usual animal. 

 

At this time the men split up, as Bauman goes to collect the remaining traps, while his partner returns to the camp to prepare their gear for the journey out of the valley. The story states that one beaver had been pulled from the trap, and was placed in a beaver house. I cannot ascertain whether this is implying that something removed the animal from the trap, and placed it in its house. If a sasquatch did take the beaver from the trap, why would it put the animal back in its beaver house?

 

IF that is what the story is implying. Maybe sasquatch like beavers, and are kind to certain animals that are not food sources for them. I don't know. This type of behavior would be indicative of an intelligent animal, as we humans enjoy keeping pets and helping animals as well. There are eyewitness accounts of sasquatch travelling and being seen with "pets" as well. Interesting to say the least.

 

By the time Bauman is heading back to camp, night is fast approaching. Upon arriving, he finds his partner dead, with his neck broken. Apparently the animal sneaked up behind the man and broke his neck, and buried its "fangs" into his neck. Well, reports suggest that sasquatch can be extremely stealthy. One report describes a witness seeing a sasquatch sneak up on some wild hogs, a formidable foe by any stretch, and killing it. Other reports suggest that the breaking of an animal's neck is a relatively common tactic for a sasquatch. The one problem I have with this aspect of the story is the claim that there were fang marks in the neck. Sasquatch simply do not have fangs, or canines, similar to a dog or cat or their wild and larger relatives, such as wolves and cougars. 

 

But if by "fang" marks was meant simply "tooth" marks, it is a bit more acceptable. I suspect that the man did not want to spend too much time looking for clues after finding his friend dead, so is it possible he knew he was looking at tooth marks, and just assumed the "fangs?" A possibility to be sure. But the story distinctly claims there were "four fang marks" in the throat. Since it describes throat, and not neck, I suppose that the sasquatch could have used this biting tactic as a "finishing" move, even though the man would have been dead from the breaking of his neck. I find a great similarity to animals such as lions, who basically go for the throat in this manner. 

 

Do sasquatch utilize this same method to kill their prey? By crushing the windpipe like this an animal is going to die by suffocation, but I cannot buy that this is a tactic a sasquatch would NEED to use to kill something or someone. But, there is another possibility. The scene that lay before the witness specifically told of the sasquatch reveling in its triumph over the tresspasser. Frolicking over the dead body is behavior that I could buy, given the circumstances, and given the way I believe the sasquatch would have been thinking. So it is quite feasible that the sasquatch could have bitten the neck in this manner simply in the heat of the moment, and not necessarily because this is a killing tactic that these animals ever really use. I mean having hands, breaking a neck seems like an option that would be used much more often and efficiently, especially given the strength of a sasquatch.

 

So that may explain this behavior, but it still does not explain the fang marks. I am not suggesting that another animal was responsible for these wounds, because to say that one must disregard all of the contrary evidence that was available, if of course the story is accurate. And I cannot buy that another animal, such as a big cat, came in afterwards and bit the man's throat, for no reason, considering he was likely already dead, and he had not been eaten in any manner.

 

And since he had not been eaten, I believe this to be MORE evidence that the sasquatch which took his life did so for reasons of anger, as opposed to a need for food. I am inclined to wonder if sasquatch have killed lone woodsman in the past, and we never hear about such cases simply because the bodies are never found. No one can say with certainty "what" happened to a woodsman who disappeared. And if one thinks back to all the mountain men who were common around the 19th century, I doubt that anyone would even miss them, considering they probably did not have much contact with other humans. I know that once a year there were often get togethers, where the mountain men would come down and sell their furs, resupply, etc., but when one of these men didn't show up to a meeting like this, I highly doubt any type of search would have been mounted. The idea of self-reliance was embedded in the lives of men like this.

 

All the evidence in this case points to sasquatch. Not to mention that there are some aspects of the story that give us information on the behavior of the animal that harassed these two men, and this information lines up exquisitely with what we know of sasquatch today. This is information that people at that time would not have had. And even if they had contact with Native Americans, they would not have learned enough to fabricate all of these notable behaviors. And if Native Americans are as some say, reluctant to talk to non-Natives about sasquatch, they would have been even more reluctant during this time period, when there was more of a deal of distrust between them and non-Natives, notably white people in general. 

 

So I concur that all avenues converge on sasquatch. And despite the fact that such brutish behavior is not common among interactions between sasquatch and humans, I believe there are reasons sufficient enough to explain why such an act would occur at this period in time, under these specific circumstances. 

Edited July 19, 2013 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest Urkelbot]

It kind of depends if Bigfoot is real or not. If so then it probably was Bigfoot.

If not its just more wildman folklore.

[norseman]

^^^^^

That's exactly my point. Again in this thread we do not care if the story is real or not. We are looking at the age of wild man stories, and I feel this is one of them and it predates bluff creek by about 70 years.

[Guest]

Hi, Norseman,

 

It's a good story, but I believe it describes a bear attack.  Described as Trappers, I wonder what their experience was with bears? 

Basis?  The account specifically rules out bear based on bipedalism.

 

And yes, I know bears can rear up and shuffle after a fashion on two legs for short distances, but it isn't the same.

 

I note the agreements of this account with the Native American accounts, which argues for it's authenticity.

[Guest]

It's a ghost story, told in camps and in bars since time immemorial.

 

Proof?

If, as you claim, bigfoot was commonly known to frontiersmen and/or trappers, why aren't there bigfoot furs on record?  It seems odd that out of all the animals in America, bigfoot is the only one not hunted for its fur. 

 

Not every critter's pelt is necessarily a good candidate for commercial harvest.  Every known type of pelt commercially harvested is useful either in it's own right (hide for making something or fur for warmth) or has some sort of other value (typically fashion).

The traits ascribed to BF hides/fur do not seem to lend themselves to commercial harvest.  Who would pay good money for a rare, stinky, generally straggly pelt that is more like hair than fur when there were/are superior pelts more readily available?

 

Lastly, for everyone doubting the account on the basis of the "fang marks", consider:

 

Edited July 19, 2013 by Mulder

[Airdale]

I've often wondered about the lack of any canines WRT Bigfoot. Is there any other known primate that has no canines? Possibly they are so placed with respect to the shape of the mouth/lips that they are not readily apparent unless the mouth is opened fully as the gorilla is demonstrating. I'm going to look for photos of gorillas with front teeth showing but canines hidden.

[Airdale]

After looking at gorilla and orangutan photos on line, as well as over 60 that I took at the New Orleans Zoo, it would seem that as a general rule, the great apes tend to either stay close lipped, or bare it all, so to speak. I did find two photos of gorillas and two of orangs that display some incisors but little or no canines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2013 by Airdale

[Guest]

The point is that they DO have "fangs" or what might as well be called "fangs" so the "fang marks" are not a deal-breaker.

 

As for primates that do not have extremely elongated canines/eyeteeth/whatever, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is man.

[norseman]

Ok class!

I want everyone to go find me a Bigfoot story before 1950. It has to have been told before 1950 as well that way nobody can confuse bluff creek hype with the story.

Super pluses for anyone that finds one including descriptions of apes.

Newspaper articles are a double plus!

Thx!

[Rockape]

Here are a few of Tirademan's post, he had many many more just like them.

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/8485-violent-bigfoot/page-5#entry596488

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/32049-an-old-report-describes-sasquatch-chasing-sheep/#entry604594

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/31737-bigfoot-behavior-menacing-vs-stepping-away/#entry600361

[Guest]

^Thank you!  I was trying to remember who our resident "old newspaper article" guy was...

 

IIRC, didn't he die recently?

[WRabbit]

Here's a few, NM....

 

 

 

 

The following is from 1941