Guest Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Norseman, I do not think either of us is particularly dogmatic, so we should have an interesting discussion here. There are two issues bound up here related to Bigfoot history prior to the 1950’s. My contention is that the sasquatch of the Green/Krantz/Meldrum model is a fusing of two different lore, sasquatch and yeti. The two issues: do sources prior to Green and Dahinden support a historical accounting of Gigantopithecus or giant bipedal apes in America, and do Bauman and Thompson in particular support belief in giant bipedal apes having roamed in America’s wild places prior to the advent of the GKM model. When I read Bigfoot enthusiasts, I see that Bauman and Thompson are virtually canonized as self-evident accounts of Bigfoot in the 1800’s. This is odd to me because the Bauman account does not mention apes at all and the Thompson account has nothing resembling Bigfoot attached to it. The Bauman story occurs in Teddy Roosevelt’s Wilderness Hunter, subtitled, an account of the big game of the United States and its chase with horse, hound, and rifle. (To be exact, the Bauman story is found in volume two.) TR’s book appears to be a real page-turner, many first hand accounts by TR himself and covers many regions of the country. It includes tales of the pronghorn, deer, wolf, black bear, “the white goat,’ the grisly bear, cougar, peccary, and so on. Unsurprisingly, there is not even a whisper about indigenous apes lurking about. This is the first fact that must confront the Bigfoot enthusiast concerning the Bauman account. Given that Bauman was an old man with vast experience in the wilds, and Roosevelt was a young man well experienced in nature, it would seem odd that one of the largest animals on the continent is apparently unknown to them. If the Bigfoot interpretation is to be believed, Bauman was trapping in Bigfoot territory and was even visited by Bigfoot, yet with all of his knowledge and experience gleaned from living the raw life of a frontiersman, he is clueless about what kind of local animal it might be that is moseying about his camp, other than maybe bear. This may seem possible to you, but implausible to me (if sasquatch were really part of American fauna). By your words, we are debating whether “the Bigfoot myth†“existed prior†to the 1950’s. How then, does the Bauman story figure in as a prior “Bigfoot myth†when there is no mention of an ape in it? Not even a “wild man?†This is not a trivial issue. Did any contemporary reader or reviewer understand the Bauman account as related by TR as a remarking about indigenous apes? If the apes were unknown to the general reading public as well as to Bauman and Roosevelt, where do you have a pre-existing myth in the story? What we have in Bauman is a spooky story which certain elements have been lifted by post “Bluff Creek†Bigfoot enthusiasts (namely Ivan T.,Green) and used in the service of giving Bigfoot a back story. Read cold, or read contemporaneously, there is no Bigfoot in it. Or, if there is a Bigfoot in the story --- enthusiasts have imagined it there. Replying to the points you gleaned from the Bauman story: 1. You admit TR doesn’t totally believe the story, but he is impressed enough to go ahead and include it in Wilderness Hunter. Impressed with the veracity of the account, or impressed with the effectiveness of the story telling and the story’s unusual nature? 2. Bauman and his partner realize the intruder is walking on two legs, based on its tracks. If not for this, everything else in the story would indicate bear. So this is the crux of the story as it relates to Bigfoot. This is probably the feature of the story that TR entertained as an expression of Bauman’s superstitious nature. TR even notes that Bauman is unlike most frontiersmen who are too practical to be very superstitious. Frankly, I can see why this story would excite the enthusiast on the two legged intruder alone. As to the truth of it, we can take it or leave it. I leave it on the grounds that TR couldn’t endorse it entirely and for the fact that everything else about it points to bear. 3. “They also report a strong odor. Do we receive reports like this today? Yes? “Many animals have or project strong odors. Once I thought I smelled skunk in the brush in the Chisos Basin in Big Bend. I slowly moved into the bush to see if I could locate it and was surprised to find myself 30 yards downwind from a peccary (javelina down here in Texas). Also a consideration in this case, odor also may be employed as an indicator of something foul or evil in a supernatural tale or piece of folklore. 4. They hear a “strong harsh moan†that you suggest indicates sasquatch. They did not apparently consider bear, therefore it wasn‘t bear, you imply. You are the expert in outdoor life. You would know better than me, but I will be bold and say that animals like bear are capable of making a wide range of noises that would surprise even the best bear man. Especially if the sound is singular. 5. “Bauman reports that the same tracks they had been observing (bipedal and human like) are definitely the culprit in the attack and death of his partner.†You overreach a little here. There is nothing in Bauman’s story that says the tracks were “human like,†which I understand you to mean human shaped. They considered a human intruder only because (within the story) they believed the intruder was walking on two legs. In fact, if the track ways were human shaped or sasquatch shaped, Bauman would have indicated that the tracks came from what appeared to be a giant-sized human. Why do you think he would omit this important element? Also, you did not underline this part of the story: “there were four great fang marks in the throat†of Bauman’s dead companion. Gorillas have large canine teeth. But sasquatch reports I have read regarding the shape of teeth mostly omit fangs or large canine teeth. For instance, Roe wrote this: “I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.†The broken neck and fang marks on the neck almost make one want to think wolf instead of bear (or sasquatch.) 6. Bauman flees the scene convinced he is dealing with something half human or half devil …. A goblin beast.†Is the “half human†attribute supposed to conjure up the popular “man-like ape†image of sasquatch? Or just a reflection of Bauman’s presumed superstitious nature and German ancestry (were-animals)? Daegling notes: “The narrative has several elements of folklore embedded in it: told not to go where the bad thing is, the men go. Discovering the bad thing, they decide to leave, but not before a last mistake in judgment. Bauman’s partner paid a terrible price, and Bauman learned too late that he should have heeded the warning; his story is unmistakably mythological in structure.†Although Ms. Strain says this aggressive, killing monster is born out in Indian lore, it certainly doesn’t seem indicative of the sasquatch of modern lore. Just think. How has NAWAC been able to camp out in The Valley of the Wood Ape virtually unmolested (except for some rock throwing games)? I’ll follow with the Thompson narrative as I have time (I’m working 7 days a week right now).
norseman Posted July 22, 2013 Admin Author Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) JW, Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to reply. When I read Bigfoot enthusiasts, I see that Bauman and Thompson are virtually canonized as self-evident accounts of Bigfoot in the 1800’s. This is odd to me because the Bauman account does not mention apes at all and the Thompson account has nothing resembling Bigfoot attached to it. First of all, I just want to make clear, that you have much bigger problems with your hypothesis that just these two accounts. When you get time you can read through the whole entire thread and articles posted within. Both of these accounts are fairly short and somewhat vague accounts of what happened in each. But I'll continue to address them as you come up to speed on all the rest. The first real hurdle you have to jump in your line of reasoning is this.............if both of these stories referred to a mundane bear account? You and I would have never read about them, because they never would have been written down. What I find interesting is that in each account the compass seems to be pointing in the same direction. Tracks are observed and in both accounts, they appear bipedal in nature. Which is what sets them apart from a "normal" Bear encounter. From there the accounts are wildly different of course, Thompson goes on his merry way, while Bauman lives through terror as the creature keeps coming back, and ultimately kills his friend. Bauman calls the creature half man or half devil........and he and his partner also discussed it being a Human. So how you cannot see the confusion and the direction the men are leaning in their hypothesis about what made the tracks are beyond me. Ok on to specific points: 1. You admit TR doesn’t totally believe the story, but he is impressed enough to go ahead and include it in Wilderness Hunter. Impressed with the veracity of the account, or impressed with the effectiveness of the story telling and the story’s unusual nature? 2. Bauman and his partner realize the intruder is walking on two legs, based on its tracks. If not for this, everything else in the story would indicate bear. So this is the crux of the story as it relates to Bigfoot. This is probably the feature of the story that TR entertained as an expression of Bauman’s superstitious nature. TR even notes that Bauman is unlike most frontiersmen who are too practical to be very superstitious. Frankly, I can see why this story would excite the enthusiast on the two legged intruder alone. As to the truth of it, we can take it or leave it. I leave it on the grounds that TR couldn’t endorse it entirely and for the fact that everything else about it points to bear. 3. “They also report a strong odor. Do we receive reports like this today? Yes? “Many animals have or project strong odors. Once I thought I smelled skunk in the brush in the Chisos Basin in Big Bend. I slowly moved into the bush to see if I could locate it and was surprised to find myself 30 yards downwind from a peccary (javelina down here in Texas). Also a consideration in this case, odor also may be employed as an indicator of something foul or evil in a supernatural tale or piece of folklore. 4. They hear a “strong harsh moan†that you suggest indicates sasquatch. They did not apparently consider bear, therefore it wasn‘t bear, you imply. You are the expert in outdoor life. You would know better than me, but I will be bold and say that animals like bear are capable of making a wide range of noises that would surprise even the best bear man. Especially if the sound is singular. 5. “Bauman reports that the same tracks they had been observing (bipedal and human like) are definitely the culprit in the attack and death of his partner.†You overreach a little here. There is nothing in Bauman’s story that says the tracks were “human like,†which I understand you to mean human shaped. They considered a human intruder only because (within the story) they believed the intruder was walking on two legs. In fact, if the track ways were human shaped or sasquatch shaped, Bauman would have indicated that the tracks came from what appeared to be a giant-sized human. Why do you think he would omit this important element? Also, you did not underline this part of the story: “there were four great fang marks in the throat†of Bauman’s dead companion. Gorillas have large canine teeth. But sasquatch reports I have read regarding the shape of teeth mostly omit fangs or large canine teeth. For instance, Roe wrote this: “I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.†The broken neck and fang marks on the neck almost make one want to think wolf instead of bear (or sasquatch.) 6. Bauman flees the scene convinced he is dealing with something half human or half devil …. A goblin beast.†Is the “half human†attribute supposed to conjure up the popular “man-like ape†image of sasquatch? Or just a reflection of Bauman’s presumed superstitious nature and German ancestry (were-animals)? 1) Teddy himself had an encounter of his own on a hunting trip, it's possible, that is what made him believe in the truthfulness of Bauman. 2) Nothing in this story indicates to me that it was a bear, and I've stood within 10 yards of one and thwacked it with an arrow, and lived in Bear country for 43 years. Especially the stalk and attack.......that's something a Cougar would do. Bears attack people, absolutely, but they are not a hunter of the caliber of a Cougar. TR wasn't going to endorse it entirely because he wanted an out, if the reception was less than stellar, evidently there just wasn't enough Skeptics around at the time willing to dissect a President's story. And you keep saying that everything else points to a Bear........it doesn't work that way. Bears do not walk around on two legs for very long, and that quite simply is your 800 lbs Gorilla in the room...........no pun intended. Ok so honest question here.........let's say it's not a Bear and not a Human, but you have a five toed bipedal track way in front of you, where does your mind turn? 3) While your story is nice, and your right many things stink in the woods, the Peccary odor does not link itself to bipedal tracks and the death of your friend. It's not just the odor..........it's the odor plus, plus and plus. It's a bundle of characteristics gleaned from the story. TR nor Bauman think the foul odor comes from anything other than the creature in the story. So while you attempt to explain it away as something mundane? That's not the point. We have a modern Sasquatch myth characteristic present in this story...........like it or not. 4) I've listened to a lot of Sasquatch audio, very little impresses me. But I would suppose that if a old mountain man told me about a long eerie moan? I would suspect that he could be able to rule out known suspects. Bull Moose give out long eerie moans.........so now this story according to a skeptic contains an upright walking Bear, a Skunk, A bull Moose..........and a predatory Cougar. We can account for everything, the tracks, the smell, the sound and the death. It's weak sauce......if the story is hogwash, which it may well be, I still find it very very interesting because of it's Sasquatch characteristics in the story. Which means that if Sasquatch is not a real animal and just a myth, these characteristics are pretty old, and are stead fast. 5) I have showed you what a hind bear paw track looks like............does it look human to you? I think the giant sized human discussion was going on between the two men..........absolutely, and I don't think it was omitted. If Bauman is talking about a two legged Bear.........we have BIG already established, but Bears don't walk on two legs............hence the Human part of the confusion. 6) I think your really splitting hairs here...........do I care as a read if he is talking about a half man/ half ape or a were ape? Or a wild man? Or a man-devil? Daegling notes: “The narrative has several elements of folklore embedded in it: told not to go where the bad thing is, the men go. Discovering the bad thing, they decide to leave, but not before a last mistake in judgment. Bauman’s partner paid a terrible price, and Bauman learned too late that he should have heeded the warning; his story is unmistakably mythological in structure.†I flunked English.........but when I read the story does it remind me of Beowulf? Ummmm no...........it's a pretty boring and short Beowulf, with the hero of the story neither killing the beast nor getting the girl. Although Ms. Strain says this aggressive, killing monster is born out in Indian lore, it certainly doesn’t seem indicative of the sasquatch of modern lore. Just think. How has NAWAC been able to camp out in The Valley of the Wood Ape virtually unmolested (except for some rock throwing games)? Well there is Bear in Area X as well bud..........so why hasn't a Bear sunk it's fangs into Bipto yet? If that is the half man half goblin of your story, then you must follow your own logic to it's conclusion. 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. In closing if there is one part of the story that I find garbage, it's the fact that a supposed very seasoned trapper goes back and strikes camp early because a half man half devil running loose in the woods and then falls to sleep by the camp fire with his back to the forest.............. it's a rookie mistake, it's also a odd thing for someone to be sleepy when they are in pure terror. But here again, maybe the man simply grew tired from the stress and fell asleep unknowingly. Another point that you would never do is split up............ever. Two is one and one is none. Lastly I forgot to mention that female Gorillas lack the size of canines that the males exhibit. If Roe watched a male eat berries? We may have a different perception of Sasquatch teeth. Edited July 22, 2013 by norseman
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) The bear that killed Treadwell was a bear that he was unfamiliar with and leery of in the days before his death Just watched a movie about him but can't recall the name right off. Jerry Wayne, nearly every culture around the world from long ago til modern times has a Bigfoot type creature , just watch a few episodes of Destination Truth and they have investigated BF type primates all over the world and come up with some interesting tracks, audio and have quite often ( Kazakhstan segment) have come up with some compelling stuff. Edited July 23, 2013 by Hellbilly
norseman Posted July 23, 2013 Admin Author Posted July 23, 2013 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ My point being is that this was not a chance encounter. Obviously the Bear knew they were human and chose to prey on them anyhow. So there are definite variables within any species. As Treadwell had spent 13 seasons previous to that deadly day in the same general location without being eaten. So to draw a parallel to Sasquatch? Because we know so little, we have no idea if and when they may decide to prey on us. But if they are a large omnivore with a similar diet to a Bear? I certainly could see it being a possibility. But that doesn't mean that every Human/Sasquatch encounter ends in death.
southernyahoo Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 http://www.conservapedia.com/Sasquatch The word “sasquatch†is a corruption of se'sxac, which came from the Bitterroot Salish tribe of Western Montana, meaning “wild menâ€, and the first use of this word can be traced to the research of a school teacher at the Chehalis Indian Reserve in British Columbia named J.W. Burns in the mid-1920s.
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Norse you are correct, it was no chance encounter. It was an old skinny bear that saw a chance for a meal with minimum exertion. I agree with you that it is possible for a deadly Human/BF encounter, There was a recent report on the BFE about an indian beaten to death by a BF, but the incident itself happened some years ago. You and I both know any wild animal can be potentially dangerous, the bigger. the badder. I wonder about the people in the Missing 411 books. How many are dead, how many are captured and kept like Albert Ostman. I tried to request the book at the County library but they can't get a copy, and I think they go for around $80. I did not see a download for it as I don't want to spend that much for a book.
norseman Posted July 23, 2013 Admin Author Posted July 23, 2013 http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/catalog/item/6180213/9227229.htm You can buy the books directly from their website as I did. And yes, I find some of the stuff in the 411 books compelling. But it's also frustrating as some of his geography is off.........way off.
Drew Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Teddy was a heck of a story teller. For all we know, he could have made up the whole thing, from Bauman on down. He spent years in jungles, overseas, mapping unexplored areas with other people, and there was no cell phone, or pocket AM/FM radio, or hot-spots. They told stories, and he was good at it. They would tell stories around the fire and to pass time. Is there any record of a Bauman ?
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 While a great orator, TR wasn't know to make stuff up. I don't know if the Bauman story is bigfoot-related or not, but there's nothing in his character to suggest he was a fabulist.
norseman Posted July 23, 2013 Admin Author Posted July 23, 2013 Teddy was a heck of a story teller. For all we know, he could have made up the whole thing, from Bauman on down. He spent years in jungles, overseas, mapping unexplored areas with other people, and there was no cell phone, or pocket AM/FM radio, or hot-spots. They told stories, and he was good at it. They would tell stories around the fire and to pass time. Is there any record of a Bauman ? It doesn't really matter if he made the story up or not concerning the examination of the myth. I'm convinced its a Bigfoot story.....all of the elements are present. Bipedal, foul odor, strange moans, etc. And it looks like you feel the same way...... Otherwise teddy is just telling another bear story.
Guest Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 JW, Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to reply. First of all, I just want to make clear, that you have much bigger problems with your hypothesis that just these two accounts. When you get time you can read through the whole entire thread and articles posted within. Both of these accounts are fairly short and somewhat vague accounts of what happened in each. But I'll continue to address them as you come up to speed on all the rest. The first real hurdle you have to jump in your line of reasoning is this.............if both of these stories referred to a mundane bear account? You and I would have never read about them, because they never would have been written down. What I find interesting is that in each account the compass seems to be pointing in the same direction. Tracks are observed and in both accounts, they appear bipedal in nature. Which is what sets them apart from a "normal" Bear encounter. From there the accounts are wildly different of course, Thompson goes on his merry way, while Bauman lives through terror as the creature keeps coming back, and ultimately kills his friend. Bauman calls the creature half man or half devil........and he and his partner also discussed it being a Human. So how you cannot see the confusion and the direction the men are leaning in their hypothesis about what made the tracks are beyond me. Ok on to specific points: 1) Teddy himself had an encounter of his own on a hunting trip, it's possible, that is what made him believe in the truthfulness of Bauman. 2) Nothing in this story indicates to me that it was a bear, and I've stood within 10 yards of one and thwacked it with an arrow, and lived in Bear country for 43 years. Especially the stalk and attack.......that's something a Cougar would do. Bears attack people, absolutely, but they are not a hunter of the caliber of a Cougar. TR wasn't going to endorse it entirely because he wanted an out, if the reception was less than stellar, evidently there just wasn't enough Skeptics around at the time willing to dissect a President's story. And you keep saying that everything else points to a Bear........it doesn't work that way. Bears do not walk around on two legs for very long, and that quite simply is your 800 lbs Gorilla in the room...........no pun intended. Ok so honest question here.........let's say it's not a Bear and not a Human, but you have a five toed bipedal track way in front of you, where does your mind turn? 3) While your story is nice, and your right many things stink in the woods, the Peccary odor does not link itself to bipedal tracks and the death of your friend. It's not just the odor..........it's the odor plus, plus and plus. It's a bundle of characteristics gleaned from the story. TR nor Bauman think the foul odor comes from anything other than the creature in the story. So while you attempt to explain it away as something mundane? That's not the point. We have a modern Sasquatch myth characteristic present in this story...........like it or not. 4) I've listened to a lot of Sasquatch audio, very little impresses me. But I would suppose that if a old mountain man told me about a long eerie moan? I would suspect that he could be able to rule out known suspects. Bull Moose give out long eerie moans.........so now this story according to a skeptic contains an upright walking Bear, a Skunk, A bull Moose..........and a predatory Cougar. We can account for everything, the tracks, the smell, the sound and the death. It's weak sauce......if the story is hogwash, which it may well be, I still find it very very interesting because of it's Sasquatch characteristics in the story. Which means that if Sasquatch is not a real animal and just a myth, these characteristics are pretty old, and are stead fast. 5) I have showed you what a hind bear paw track looks like............does it look human to you? I think the giant sized human discussion was going on between the two men..........absolutely, and I don't think it was omitted. If Bauman is talking about a two legged Bear.........we have BIG already established, but Bears don't walk on two legs............hence the Human part of the confusion. 6) I think your really splitting hairs here...........do I care as a read if he is talking about a half man/ half ape or a were ape? Or a wild man? Or a man-devil? I flunked English.........but when I read the story does it remind me of Beowulf? Ummmm no...........it's a pretty boring and short Beowulf, with the hero of the story neither killing the beast nor getting the girl. Well there is Bear in Area X as well bud..........so why hasn't a Bear sunk it's fangs into Bipto yet? If that is the half man half goblin of your story, then you must follow your own logic to it's conclusion. 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. In closing if there is one part of the story that I find garbage, it's the fact that a supposed very seasoned trapper goes back and strikes camp early because a half man half devil running loose in the woods and then falls to sleep by the camp fire with his back to the forest.............. it's a rookie mistake, it's also a odd thing for someone to be sleepy when they are in pure terror. But here again, maybe the man simply grew tired from the stress and fell asleep unknowingly. Another point that you would never do is split up............ever. Two is one and one is none. Lastly I forgot to mention that female Gorillas lack the size of canines that the males exhibit. If Roe watched a male eat berries? We may have a different perception of Sasquatch teeth. How do you figure the Bauman story would be unremarkable if only a bear account, given the fact that his partner is killed in a frightful manner? I suggested it had elements of a bear story. The rummaging through the camp is something bears are well known to do. And bears do occasionally kill people. But I don’t think our problem begins and ends here. I’ll offer this and you can set me straight if I’m wrong. Although you are not certain the Bauman story is true, you nevertheless look at it in a most literal way. You basically take the story straight up. You admit it may not be true, but as a story you follow along as it is given. In contrast, I never look at Bigfoot stories (or other types of stories) literally. I know there are elements to every story that ought not to be taken at face value. For instance, if someone says they saw a seven foot tall ape crossing the road a hundred yards up and the sighting lasted only two or three seconds, I know immediately that the seven foot tall description is to be questioned. (There would be no means for a excited or perplexed motorist to judge height in so brief a time at that distance --- on the other hand, the seven foot attribute would fit the cultural meme of what height is standard for a Bigfoot and therefore that is what the eyewitness “saw“.) I do not know if Bauman’s story has any basis in fact at all. It could be a tall-tale by a practiced story teller. In the old frontier, great story telling was a fine attribute, a means of entertainment for harsh lives in the wild. Or Bauman may have experienced the basic outline of the story as a young man (a bear attack), and spruced it up with mysterious elements to make it more memorable and exciting. Or, as TR hints, Bauman may have let his superstitious nature get the best of him as he grafted supernaturalism onto a more mundane event. (This is why I mentioned “were-animals†before, in European folklore past, humans may take the form of animals --- were-wolves, were-foxes, were-bats, etc. or, in other words, beings part-human, part devil.) Whatever the origin of the story, we can’t take it as it lies. If nothing else, the structure of the story is told for maximum effect belying its “story telling†purpose. Also the story is told about “when Bauman was still a young man†by Bauman now a “grizzled, weathered beaten old mountain hunter; the passage of time surely would have altered memory and details. The story includes vivid images that Bauman states as facts, but in which he didn’t experience first hand, such as the precise manner in which his partner died. And as Daegling pointed out, there are elements of the structure of lore embedded in the account, meaning that there is an underlying moral point to the story in the same way that tales for children, like The Three Bears, have moral instruction embedded in the story telling. If we take the story literally, I still don’t think your interpretation is entirely supportable. The creature is bi-pedal, so that is in your favor. But that’s it. The tracks are never defined as human or human-like in form. The trappers discuss the possibility the track maker may be human, but really only because the maker is walking on two legs. If they actually believed the tracks were human like in appearance, Bauman would have noted them as such.The“half-man†reference is probably the very element TR doubts and consigns to superstition. Could you give any cogent reason why a long lived experienced frontier hunter and trapper like Bauman, and a hunting enthusiast as well traversed as TR, would recount a story about a local bipedal animal that they obviously knew nothing about? Not even a whispered rumor of local apes. As to your points. Where may we find TR’s own encounter with a sasquatch? I suggest that certain elements, in a general outline, can be seen as representative of bear. But you are right that the story has elements that work against the bear explanation. I regret I caused you to think that I think the Bauman story is based on an encounter with a bi-pedal bear. Never entertained that idea. As to the odor. Again this could just be a part of the story that was created to enhance the vividness of the account. Same may be true of contemporary accounts. My peccary story was meant to show that bringing “odor†into a wildlife account is not unique to sasquatch. I think your idea of “this story according to a skeptic†is very funny. I hope it was meant that way. Would you explain to me, because I am missing something here, how a story, if total “hogwash,†would lend credence to present day sasquatch stories. I don’t get it. I have to disagree. If we had giant human tracks Bauman would have dutifully noted that important fact. And giant human tracks would not translate to “half man†and “half devil.†Do grizzly bears live in Area X? According to Ms. Strain, the Bauman account seems to be well known behavior of sasquatch to Indians. So we would expect more such accounts, and she admits to worrying about her team mates in Area X. Help her out with the Tim Treadwell story. I will be moving on to Thompson, but will consider any reply to the above. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
norseman Posted July 24, 2013 Admin Author Posted July 24, 2013 ^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes but the bipedal part of the story is the nail in the coffin of your argument of it being a Bear. It's not a trivial characteristic one can over look with all of the rest of the characteristics being that of a Bear (which I do not agree with anyhow). Again it's the myth we are examining.......not the veracity of the story. And I do not think for one second that TR is telling the story with a Bear in mind. The tracks are never described as human? Or human like? They did discuss it as being possibly human.......and for that matter a Bear track looks human, they have five toes like us. Cougars and Wolves all have four toes and a much smaller track. Lastly............if the Bauman account is that of a Bear..........why didn't they just leave out the devil parts? It's possible Teddy may have included a deadly Bear encounter of a second hand nature in his book? But not probable...........Teddy had plenty of his own first hand accounts of Bears and Bear hunting to draw from without including this story of a more mundane explanation. That's my .02 cents. Ok moving on......... Can you support your assertion that there is not a mention of giant apes anywhere by anyone running loose in N. America during the late 1800's? I think instead of debating Bauman and Thompson further, I'll just concede those two encounters to you as being not apart of the myth of Sasquatch in this thread and move on in this debate as to what is fully documented from the late 1800's. So I invite you to look over the old newspaper clippings posted graciously in this thread on page one and we can go from there? Because unlike Bauman and Thomspon? There are specific articles that specifically spell out "ape men", prior to Bluff creek, and John Green's involvement in the 50's. And this is a giant hurdle for you and your Green "ape" invention hypothesis. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Hogwash. Let's address that. Again we are only examining the myth of Sasquatch in our debate. I'm not asking to be impressed or moved by these old accounts. But what I'm looking for is some sort of lineage of attributes associated with the myth. As well as attack your Green hypothesis. Bauman's story could be complete hogwash, again we are discussing a myth at this point. Can we look at Bauman's story and see attributes associated with Sasquatch. And the answer is yes we can. 1) Bipedal 2) Possibly confused with bear tracks (this is common even today, both ways) 3) Odor 4) Strange moans 5) And really in some cases? Aggression towards Humans. 6) Rifling through a camp. None of those six traits are out of character with the modern myth or the myth in the early 1900's. I didn't fly like the Mothman, it did not spit fire like a Dragon. It did not leave tracks to be associated with something other than a Bear or a Human. Again, did they say it was an ape? No. But the story is certainly within the parameters of the modern Sasquatch myth. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Area X. No. Grizzly bears do not live in area X..........but black bears do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America People seem to have an image of a black bear as something that get's into the trash and that's about it. Actually quite a few people are attacked and killed by Black Bear, and on occasion are eaten by them. This really isn't my beef with the Bauman story, the problem I have is that if a Bear is going to try and sneak in and kill a person, he has dinner on his mind. And yet the attack seems to be calculated beyond a Bear's comprehension with it waiting for the two men to separate. And it also didn't attempt to eat the man, so the attack was not based on predation. The men never saw baby tracks, the camp screams human in scent and sound.........ummmmm whatever went in there fully knew what it's intended victim was. One could argue that Bauman scared whatever it was away.......but as another lone Human, why didn't it then attempt to kill Bauman? Also, Bears don't sneak that I have ever observed, they don't use cover and they don't belly crawl. But there is a known animal that does those things...........a Cougar. So I guess the best plausible scenario is that they were badgered by a Bear for some days, and on the last day Bauman's friend was killed by a Cougar at camp? Except of course the Bear was walking bipedally.........again a major problem. Also, when I read the 411 books, as a proponent that believes something could be out there? I certainly sends a cold shiver up my spin. And interestingly enough one of the main aggregates mined from the data is that your much more likely to go missing..........permanently missing if you go out by yourself or are separated from the group. Obviously if your alone and separated from a group your technically "missing", or lost whatever. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking missing with no trace or very little evidence of your passing, never to be found. This is again a tangent and not the main thrust of the debate, it's just my mental ramblings of the Bear hypothesis in this story. It doesn't really matter. I guess I should have included this above, but I'm just reading down your post and addressing points from there. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TR's account is documented in one of his books I believe, I saw it on monster quest or one of those shows. Can anybody help us out? This is not the Bauman story, but Teddy's account of a hunting trip to Washington where one night something visiting the camp and vocally lambasted them. I’ll offer this and you can set me straight if I’m wrong. Although you are not certain the Bauman story is true, you nevertheless look at it in a most literal way. You basically take the story straight up. You admit it may not be true, but as a story you follow along as it is given. Exactly..........because I'm not concerning myself in this thread with debating over mundane plausible scenarios for the story. It's not main stage to the debate, despite getting off on tangents. The main issue I have with your assertions is that John Green inventing the myth of Bigfoot or Sasquatch in the 1950's. With the tip of the spear being that prior to 1950, Bigfoot or Sasquatch WAS NOT ape like. This is a factual error on your part, at least according to the evidence posted in this thread observed by everyone reading it. That's why I'm asking you to forget about Thompson, and look at the newspaper articles posted on page one and go from there. Other wise we are just going to look silly debating Thompson, when we have so much more damning evidence to your hypothesis than his account. I hope we are still having fun here, and I want you to know that I appreciate a skeptical mind and I certainly do not take everything "straight up"..........absolutely people make mistakes, memory doesn't serve well or whatever. I kinda gloss over evidence until I find a nugget that can be only two things...........Squatch or hoax. Bear tracks, Cougar whistles, Coyote howls............I just gloss over. The next step though is much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. And then very frustrating because if I'm watching or reading an account, I would do things very differently. Squatcher modus operendi for a track way is to break out the measuring tape and the dental resin. If those were Elk tracks and you were an Elk hunter? You would have tons and tons of Elk track casts on your wall...........but that would be about it.
Guest Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 "several times it uttered a harsh, grating, long-drawn moan..."
norseman Posted July 25, 2013 Admin Author Posted July 25, 2013 Did Bauman report shooting an arrow into one? Did he report two bears fighting? Did he report reading the jungle story around the camp fire? Did he report something bipedal? I've sat in a bear stand all night long many of times and I think I can say with experience that bears to not make loud moans into the night. If you would like to come out sometime I could set you up on the ranch and observe them. They are not a super vocal animal. My turn.......explain an article in the Portland gazette in 1924 that reported ape men attacking miners up at mt. St. Helens? A full 30 years before anyone had ever heard of bluff creek......
OnlyASize12 Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 TR's account is documented in one of his books I believe, I saw it on monster quest or one of those shows. Can anybody help us out? This is not the Bauman story, but Teddy's account of a hunting trip to Washington where one night something visiting the camp and vocally lambasted them. I've seen the same television program. It was a pretty low-key event...sorta. TR and a friend were camped for the night and they heard something "howling" in the dark near them. What seemed to intrigue Roosevelt was that he thought he knew the sounds the local animals would make and he couldn't identify what was causing this particular noise. A bit of an aside...but I don't think it is unreasonable that TR heard about encounters during his years hunting and enjoying the outdoors. If you take his report at face-value, he spoke with Bauman personally. His inclusion of the story may attest to his belief that there was something to the report beyond it being a tall-tale. His other report of hearing something he couldn't identify make sense in that he was a man who was intensely curious and interested in discovering things about the natural world. Having heard legends of Sasquatch that he couldn't confirm...he added his own possible encounter correctly phrased as hearing something he couldn't identify in an area where that surprised him. Tim Tim
Recommended Posts