Bauman Story

[Rockape]

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

 

IIRC, didn't he die recently?

 

Yes, he did. He had an extensive collection of old newspaper stories such as that, some of which gigantor has been recording in the premium section. I don't want to post any of them here however, as it is against forum rules to repost anything here from the premium section.

[Guest]

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.

 

Well, all primates/apes have canines: what you are talking about is the length of the actual tooth, in comparison to the rest of the the teeth in the jaws..

 

That said, humans (and our immediate ancestors) and gigantopithecus all have essentially level canines. I believe (if I remember this correctly) it is related to the degree of facial projection, and secondarily to diet. (But I could be wrong there; it has been awhile...)

[Airdale]

After looking through several hundred photos of gorillas, orangs and other miscellaneous apes, it definitely seemed that canine length had a relationship with how pronounced the jaw/snout appeared. I spent five months in the Philippines on detached duty from my air wing during Vietnam and had a chance to observe a lot of monkeys and a few apes, and I know the monks with the pointy faces had the biggest fangs. I remember one cute little guy, maybe 20 lbs max. that I tried to strike up a conversation with.  He opened wide and snarled in response and it was like some of those CGI morphs you see on TV or monster movies; I swear he had two inch canines and it made me really appreciate the 16' razor wire topped chain link fence that separated us!

[norseman]

I like the newspaper articles thanks guys!

 

Some of the things I read where either it was Ape like or Simian.....a wild man, or hairy two legged monster. And in one article it threw "missiles", and in another it was supposedly responsible for livestock deaths. Lastly these articles are from all over the US..........and not just California or Washington. And some of these articles are pre 1900.

 

No where am I seeing anything that is out of the norm according to Bigfoot mythology. Nor am I seeing a favoring of one region over another.

[Guest]

I like the newspaper articles thanks guys!

 

Some of the things I read where either it was Ape like or Simian.....a wild man, or hairy two legged monster. And in one article it threw "missiles", and in another it was supposedly responsible for livestock deaths. Lastly these articles are from all over the US..........and not just California or Washington. And some of these articles are pre 1900.

 

No where am I seeing anything that is out of the norm according to Bigfoot mythology. Nor am I seeing a favoring of one region over another.

1. The stories are almost all from the pacific northwest. The papers simply reprinted wire reports.

2. The stories are all of the "someone saw something" variety. In no case is there my physical evidence offered to support the "witness'" accounts. Moreover, the accounts were usually second hand, at best.

3. The Times story is from the height of yellow journalism. It was likely a sensationalized account of an escaped circus animal, as suggested at the bottom of the paper.

4. The term Sasquatch was created by a white author, JW Burns. His writings were published in the April 1, 1929 Maclean's magazine, likely the most read publication in Canada at the time. It's likely that the later stories were prompted by his writings. Regardless, no Indian tribe used the word Sasquatch. The 1924 story came shortly after the 1924 miners' cabin incident, which probably sparked a eve of "sightings" just like bluff creek.

[norseman]

 

I like the newspaper articles thanks guys!

 

Some of the things I read where either it was Ape like or Simian.....a wild man, or hairy two legged monster. And in one article it threw "missiles", and in another it was supposedly responsible for livestock deaths. Lastly these articles are from all over the US..........and not just California or Washington. And some of these articles are pre 1900.

 

No where am I seeing anything that is out of the norm according to Bigfoot mythology. Nor am I seeing a favoring of one region over another.

1. The stories are almost all from the pacific northwest. The papers simply reprinted wire reports.

2. The stories are all of the "someone saw something" variety. In no case is there my physical evidence offered to support the "witness'" accounts. Moreover, the accounts were usually second hand, at best.

3. The Times story is from the height of yellow journalism. It was likely a sensationalized account of an escaped circus animal, as suggested at the bottom of the paper.

4. The term Sasquatch was created by a white author, JW Burns. His writings were published in the April 1, 1929 Maclean's magazine, likely the most read publication in Canada at the time. It's likely that the later stories were prompted by his writings. Regardless, no Indian tribe used the word Sasquatch. The 1924 story came shortly after the 1924 miners' cabin incident, which probably sparked a eve of "sightings" just like bluff creek.

 

 

1) I think you need to look a little closer to the articles..........

 

2) Not applicable to this discussion. If Mrs. Smith saw a giant ape in her back yard in Ohio in 1895? Then it's quite impossible for John Green to be the father of "inventing" the idea that Sasquatch was an ape in the 1950's.

 

3) Again........we are not analyzing the validity of the claims being made.

 

4) Right. So we have miner's in 1924 being terrorized by big apes up in ape canyon and this Mr. Burns coining the term "Sasquatch". Which is well before the 1950's.

 

Also, is anybody reading Jerrywayne's posting that I quoted? Post 5.

 

He wrote:

 

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.

 

So what JW is saying is that in bluff creek in the 50's, nobody has any idea what is making the tracks, until John G. shows up........and at that moment in time the stars align, the angels sing, and the legend of Bigfoot is born. 

 

Well this hypothesis is simply wrong......... no matter what you call it, "Mountain Devil", "Sasquatch", "Bigfoot" or "Woodape", there is a definite lineage of people seeing upright walking ape creatures on this continent for a long time before Mr. Green went to California.

[Rockape]

I don't really understand what the argument is here. Anyone who doesn't know there are stories going back way before Bluff Creek that describe a "wild man" or "ape" doesn't really know much about bigfoot. The archives of Tirademan's newspaper articles have plenty  that originate well away from California or the PNW. From Arkansas to Illinoise to Florida. One from Arkansas, just as an example, dates to 1856 and describes a huge creature covered with hair. There are plenty more like that.

 

All I can tell them is they will have to become a premium member to read them since reposting them here is against rules.

[norseman]

Well maybe somebody needs to compile the reports into a book and sell it? Because definitely there is some confusion here. Bluff creek is not the birth place of this mystery.

[MIB]

Such a book exists.  It may not be exactly what you're suggesting, but The Historical Bigfoot by Chad Arment reproduces the contents of many newspaper accounts, some going back into the mid 1800s.   It is available from amazon.com.   

 

Bluff Creek just gave us the name "bigfoot", it was not the start of the stories, not by any means.   Anyone suggesting that needs their bigfoot training wheels a bit longer. 

 

MIB

Edited July 21, 2013 by MIB

[Guest Urkelbot]

To add to these old accounts what about the native American stories? Do they all say the same thing, are they different, and how much is just quasi religious mumbo jumbo?

[norseman]

To add to these old accounts what about the native American stories? Do they all say the same thing, are they different, and how much is just quasi religious mumbo jumbo?

 

In this debate Jerrywayne didn't want to include those myth stories, so I did not concentrate on them. Just Anglo/American stories that could be vetted......as in a newspaper article or sworn testimony like Ostman. Or in my thinking a President's own book on his hunting exploits.

Such a book exists.  It may not be exactly what you're suggesting, but The Historical Bigfoot by Chad Arment reproduces the contents of many newspaper accounts, some going back into the mid 1800s.   It is available from amazon.com.   

 

Bluff Creek just gave us the name "bigfoot", it was not the start of the stories, not by any means.   Anyone suggesting that needs their bigfoot training wheels a bit longer. 

 

MIB

 

Nice! I check it out......

 

And I concur.

[Guest]

I read somewhere that leif Erickson saw large hairy men in 980 ad when he landed in newfoundland. 

here is a link about other vikings and squatch.I cut and pasted the list below of natives names for the creatures. 

Seems they were here long ago....

 

 

http://www.gcbro.com/CAnf001.html

 

   The First Nations people of this land are very familiar with the sasquatch. All the tribes of North America had a name for it long before the European settlers arrived. If I may go off on a tangent for a moment, the first Vikings to land in North America saw sasquatch. Erik the Red reported seeing huge ape-like creatures that walked upright, that had a swarthy appearance. This was around the 980 A.D. time period.
   One can look into every culture and find a name for the sasquatch. It is very interesting. I have compiled a list of First Nations names. To the peoples it is part of their culture, no matter if it is the Cree, Ojibwe or Lakota. There are stories behind the name in each culture, but I will delve into that at a later date. For now, I present the list.

First Nation Name Cree Wetiko Ojibwe Rugaru Dene Nakani Dakota Sioux Chiha Tanka Lakota Chiye Tanka Athabascan Windago Okanogan Sne nah Coast Salish See'atco Alutiiq Neginla eh Iroquois Ot ne yar heh Iroquois - Seneca Ge no sqwa Plains Iktomi Bella Coola Boqs Salishan Saskets Haida Gogit

 

here is some sasquatch history

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/bigfoot_history.html

 

[MIB]

To add to these old accounts what about the native American stories? Do they all say the same thing, are they different, and how much is just quasi religious mumbo jumbo?

 

Your question is kind of vague.   Native American accounts vary but in predictable ways.  They reflect what you might expect to enter folklore as different tribes/bands entering a new area have different "flavors" of first contact.   One describes demonic / evil beings that do bad things ... steal women and children and so on.  Another describes beings that the tribe engages in trade with.   Another yet describes beings that are just best left alone, neither good nor bad, just not to be messed with.   First contact lays the groundwork / sets the tone for all subsequent contact.   If the experience was positive, you'll allow some leeway / forgiveness if something bad happens, in isolation, in the future.   If you start on the wrong foot, it is nearly impossible to reset and start over because the expectations have been established. 

 

If you are looking for a single one size fits all answer, it's not the answer that is wrong, it is your question's underlying assumptions. 

 

There are books dealing with the Native American perspectives.   All you have to do is buy them and read them.   I suggest Tribal Bigfoot and Raincoast Sasquatch, the first for the Nor Cal perspective, the second for the NW Coastal perspective ... SE Alaska to the Columbia river. 

 

If you read with an open mind (hmmm ... this is interesting vs hmmm ... this is BS) and try to pull patterns from the reports, it's pretty fascinating.   Of course, some familiarity with the tribes and the rest of their culture helps.   I'm no expert but you can't live in these regions for long periods of time without some of the older cultures creeping into your awareness.

 

'luck!

 

MIB

 

PS: A request ... if anyone has a good book on the relevant aspects of plains and upper midwest tribal cultures, please let me know.

Edited July 21, 2013 by MIB

[Guest]

I read somewhere that leif Erickson saw large hairy men in 980 ad when he landed in newfoundland. 

here is a link about other vikings and squatch.I cut and pasted the list below of natives names for the creatures. 

Seems they were here long ago....

 

 

http://www.gcbro.com/CAnf001.html

 

   The First Nations people of this land are very familiar with the sasquatch. All the tribes of North America had a name for it long before the European settlers arrived. If I may go off on a tangent for a moment, the first Vikings to land in North America saw sasquatch. Erik the Red reported seeing huge ape-like creatures that walked upright, that had a swarthy appearance. This was around the 980 A.D. time period.

   One can look into every culture and find a name for the sasquatch. It is very interesting. I have compiled a list of First Nations names. To the peoples it is part of their culture, no matter if it is the Cree, Ojibwe or Lakota. There are stories behind the name in each culture, but I will delve into that at a later date. For now, I present the list.

First Nation

Name

Cree

Wetiko

Ojibwe

Rugaru

Dene

Nakani

Dakota Sioux

Chiha Tanka

Lakota

Chiye Tanka

Athabascan

Windago

Okanogan

Sne nah

Coast Salish

See'atco

Alutiiq

Neginla eh

Iroquois

Ot ne yar heh

Iroquois - Seneca

Ge no sqwa

Plains

Iktomi

Bella Coola

Boqs

Salishan

Saskets

Haida

Gogit

 

here is some sasquatch history

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/bigfoot_history.html

Of course, the fact that this is a (mis)translation of the Vinland Sagas is conveniently omitted. The only reference to "hair" or "hairy men" is in this passage:

"Þeir váru svartir menn ok illiligir ok höfðu illt hár á höfði. Þeir váru mjök eygðir ok breiðir í kinnum." Its in chapter 10 of the hauksbok. That translates roughly to "the natives were dark skinned, with big eyes and braod cheeks and [greasy or clingy] hair on their heads."

Some other manuscripts use smair instead of svartir. Smair means small. Regardless, they are not talking about hair covered beasts. They're talking about humans who didn't wash their hair.

See eg. http://skepticalhumanities.com/tag/leif-eiriksson/

[Rockape]

When reading these old stories from Native Americans it is often hard to tell where myth mixes with reality. Some of that is due to the stories being folklore legends handed down over the generations by word of mouth, they could change from the original story over time and often ended up as "bogey man" stories intended to have a moral, such as children should not wander off, especially at night.

 

Some of these stories require a leap to connect them with what we now call Big Foot, but some are consistent with what we believe is the same creature. One thing I have surmised from these old legends/stories, it seems Native Americans, for the most part, encountered bigfoot much as we do today, not often and usually not for very long and they seem as mystified of them as we are today.

 

But the stories are out there and many are actual tales of encounters with bigfoot and clearly not merely retelling of a myth. Here are a few that describe encounters with a bigfoot from bigfootencounters, from the BC area and dated 1929 and earlier...

 

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/burns.htm