Bauman Story

[Guest]

Norseman,

Not so fast. I would like to look at the David Thompson story.

Here is how it is usually presented by Bigfoot enthusiasts: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/davidthompson.htm

In fact, google Thompson and you’re likely to find Thompson connected to Bigfoot high on the list. Is this case shut in favor of David Thompson as the first white man to record a Bigfoot track?

Chad Arment, in his The Historical Bigfoot, referring to the tracks Thompson found, says Thompson’s “Native American guides told him they were made by a ’Mammoth,’ it is unknown which animal the guides were referring to, (certainly not the fossil elephant), and there is some doubt among current researchers as to whether this track has relevance to Bigfoot.â€

Thompson considered this a bear track, so that should have been the end of the story. But enthusiasts want to go with Thompson’s companions because it makes the tracks more mysterious. “Mammoth“ but “certainly not the fossil elephant.†I was a little mystified too as to why “mammoth?â€

Well, it turns out, Thompson was referring to the fossil elephant. You may say the mammoth was America’s first cryptid. Because of living elephants in Africa and Asia, and the finding of fossil elephant bones in America, some explorers, pioneers and frontier men thought there may be elephants in the far reaches of unexplored America. Thompson was requested to look for elephant bones by President Jefferson himself, an individual with a scientific curiosity.

Thompson had heard about a large animal from a First Nations chief and it may have sounded like an elephant to him. However, he seemed to want to discourage talk amongst First Nations people of mammoths.

In any event, here is an interesting article on Thompson and mammoths: http://northcolumbiamonthly.com/boundaries/boundaries0105.shtml

Here is a page from Thompson’s narrative, 1784 - 1812: http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/DigObj.cfm?Idno=9_96855&Lang=eng&Page=0304&Size=3&query=mammoth&searchtype=Fulltext&startrow=1&Limit=All

Here is a page from the narrative that begins with reference to mammoths and then down page the account of the tracks: http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/DigObj.cfm?Idno=9_96855&Lang=eng&Page=0570&Size=3&query=mammoth&searchtype=Fulltext&startrow=1&Limit=All

Here is the same page from a different edition. Notice the footnote: http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/DigObj.cfm?Idno=9_96867&Lang=eng&Page=0423&Size=3&query=mammoth&searchtype=Fulltext&startrow=1&Limit=All

And here is the overview article I linked to before: http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2860

[Rockape]

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. 

 

 

I seem to recall TR said they were hearing strange howls and having pine cones or rocks tossed at them. He and the person with him slept back to back with rifles in their laps by the fire. I might be confusing that story with someone else's however.

[Guest Urkelbot]

How about the Spanish explorers, conquistadors, settlers, missionaries, etc in north America. Did they record any stories or accounts of wildman/Bigfoot?

[Guest]

Here is a link with a bunch of old newspaper clips and  it looks like all pre date PGf and Bluff Creek. enjoy  http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/07/watch-grand-canyon-bigfoot-encounter.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[norseman]

Iam working in North Dakota right now when I get back to Montana ill respond more

[chelefoot]

There is a fairly new Facebook page dedicated to compiling news articles about the BF or Wild man. From what I have seen so far, they also pre-date PGF/Bluff Creek.

 

https://www.facebook.com/BigfootinNews

[Guest UPs]

This argument from skeptics that bf is a modern myth comes up from time to time and really has no merit. There are stories that go back over 150 years of what we can only describe as bf or sasquatch. Recently, I was reading a very famous book by Jack London called " A call of the Wild " and in one of the later chapters he describes what we call sasquach. The description is not exactly a match for bf, but pretty darn close and this was published in 1903. Of course the book is fiction, but it tells me that sasquatch was ingrained as common knowledge at this time period. UPs

[norseman]

Jerrywayne,

 

 

Ok I'll play along, if you promise to address the question I asked you about apes in ape canyon in 1924.

 

In one of your links above the track in question had claws. Short claws but there were claw marks present. We do not see claw marks associated with Sasquatch. But the tracks were in snow, it's well known that tracks in snow leave less detail than other strata. So is it really a claw mark or a toe nail? Or just the toes themselves dragging out of the track? The clincher is that Thompson does not describe a fore paw track associated with his track he is observing..... so again like the Bauman account, this is where the confusion comes in to the story. What makes a Bear track strange? When we do not see a fore paw track that is much much shorter associated with the longer hind paw track. So we should be able to rule out Bear very quickly if we were present with Thompson observing the trackway at that time.

 

Elephants I just learned have disproportionate amount of toes. The African elephants have four toes on their front feet and three toes on their back feet. Asian elephants on the other hand, have five on the front and four at the back. Mammoths are more closely related to Asian elephants, so I suggest we go with that. Also Bears have five toes on all four feet, and Sasquatch tracks normally exhibit five toes as well. On top of that, Elephants do not have claws, nor do they have well defined toes, but it's remotely possible that he was observing a rear Asian related elephant foot if we count the toes. Which has some serious implications of its own right.

 

Can we definitively say this is describing a Mammoth? From your link:

 

“"The Old Chief & others related that in the Woods of the Mountains there is a very large Animal, of abt the height of 3 fms & great bulk that never lies down, but in sleeping always leans against a large Tree to support his weight; they believe, they say, that he has no joints in the mid of his Legs, but they are not sure as they never killed any of them, &  by this acct they are rarely or never seen."†

 

Usually one would expect a person to describe an Elephant's trunk, as it's pretty peculiar in the animal world. I'm not sure what measurement 3 fms is, but I suppose we can take from this description is a very large animal that is never seen to lay down.

 

I have no idea IF Elephants lay down often, but they can.

 

 

I'm going to go back to my default position, that there is no way anyone is going to mistake a Elephant track with a Bear track. And if it was simply a Bear track? Then why did he write about it as being something of a mystery between him and his Indian guides..........why did they insist it was something else? One fore paw track in that trackway seals the deal that it was a Bear. When we encounter old accounts of a bipedal Bear trackway it's always suspicious. And I find both accounts (Thompson and Bauman) to be similar in that regard.

[Cotter]

Sasquatch most likely rode Asian elephants over to North America, both the Sasquatch and Asian Elephant developed hair over their bodies to adapt to the new harsher climate.

 

;-)

[Guest]

Brilliant !   

 

 

 

dav

[Guest]

Norseman,

I'll address Ape Canyon and other "historical" Bigfoot accounts in due time. I'll respond to your Thompson ideas, first.

I'm not sure what you think I think about Ape Canyon, etc. But I'll give you this tease: Most enthusiasts owe their beliefs less to 1920's Ape Canyon and owe their ideas more to the 1950's yeti.

[norseman]

You've stated in the past that the apeish modern Bigfoot was born at bluff creek in the 1950's.

Before that it wasn't seen as an ape at all.....

[WRabbit]

WRabbit, on 17 Jul 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

It's a good story, but I believe it describes a bear attack.

 

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

 

Bears have been proven to exist.

[Guest]

Jerrywayne,

 

 

Ok I'll play along, if you promise to address the question I asked you about apes in ape canyon in 1924.

 

In one of your links above the track in question had claws. Short claws but there were claw marks present. We do not see claw marks associated with Sasquatch. But the tracks were in snow, it's well known that tracks in snow leave less detail than other strata. So is it really a claw mark or a toe nail? Or just the toes themselves dragging out of the track? The clincher is that Thompson does not describe a fore paw track associated with his track he is observing..... so again like the Bauman account, this is where the confusion comes in to the story. What makes a Bear track strange? When we do not see a fore paw track that is much much shorter associated with the longer hind paw track. So we should be able to rule out Bear very quickly if we were present with Thompson observing the trackway at that time.

 

Elephants I just learned have disproportionate amount of toes. The African elephants have four toes on their front feet and three toes on their back feet. Asian elephants on the other hand, have five on the front and four at the back. Mammoths are more closely related to Asian elephants, so I suggest we go with that. Also Bears have five toes on all four feet, and Sasquatch tracks normally exhibit five toes as well. On top of that, Elephants do not have claws, nor do they have well defined toes, but it's remotely possible that he was observing a rear Asian related elephant foot if we count the toes. Which has some serious implications of its own right.

 

Can we definitively say this is describing a Mammoth? From your link:

 

 

Usually one would expect a person to describe an Elephant's trunk, as it's pretty peculiar in the animal world. I'm not sure what measurement 3 fms is, but I suppose we can take from this description is a very large animal that is never seen to lay down.

 

I have no idea IF Elephants lay down often, but they can.

 

 (video)

I'm going to go back to my default position, that there is no way anyone is going to mistake a Elephant track with a Bear track. And if it was simply a Bear track? Then why did he write about it as being something of a mystery between him and his Indian guides..........why did they insist it was something else? One fore paw track in that trackway seals the deal that it was a Bear. When we encounter old accounts of a bipedal Bear trackway it's always suspicious. And I find both accounts (Thompson and Bauman) to be similar in that regard.

Norseman,

Here is an interesting article that gives more background information about early American cultural views concerning mammoths and mammoth bones. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Mammoths-and-Mastodons-All-American-Monsters.html

To be honest, your reply is odd to me. It is anachronistic. You are assuming Thompson and his men would know what a mammoth’s track would look like. How would they know that? They would not have seen a live elephant or a reconstructed one.

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refelephant.html

While the European descendant traders, map makers, and explorers may have understood “mammoth†to mean elephants of pre-history, the First Nation peoples doubtless had in mind some huge creature. Where did the two cultures get a similar notion of a giant animal roaming the hinterland? From the finds throughout the U.S. of mammoth and mastodon bones. To First Nations peoples and frontiersman, the bones were evidence of the existence of some huge fearsome creature.

Here again is Thompson’s mention of eastern First Nations’ lore based on a mammoth bone, and its attendant lore in the west, from whites and Indians.

http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/DigObj.cfm?Idno=9_96855〈=eng&Page=0304&Size=3&query=mammoth&searchtype=Fulltext&startrow=1&Limit=All

Here again is Thompson noting that his men believed an area of tree falls was the work of a mammoth. He says he had them admit they had never seen the creature itself and he tells them that such a creature would leave signs, it “would leave indelible marks of its feet†if it truly existed.

http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/DigObj.cfm?Idno=9_96855〈=eng&Page=0570&Size=3&query=mammoth&searchtype=Fulltext&startrow=1&Limit=All

So, a couple of days later Thompson and company find tracks belonging to what Thompson believes is a “large old grizled Bear.†His companions think it is the track of a mammoth. It’s easy to see what is happening here. Thompson had tried to dissuade his men from believing in the mammoth and lectured them about the need for evidence for its existence; for instance, it “would leave indelible marks of its feet.“ So, when they come upon large bear tracks that lack the signature long claw marks, they argue for mammoth, thereby finding the “indelible marks of its feet†required by Thompson to verify their belief.

Your “default position, that there is no way anyone is going to mistake a Elephant track with a bear track.†You continue: “And if it was simply a bear track? Then why did he write about it as being something of a mystery between him and his Indian guides.?

First, no one at that time would have known what an elephant track looked like. Second, they believed the mammoth was a giant animal (not necessarily an elephant, but much larger than a sasquatch, so please don’t go there). And third, it was not a mystery to him; their insistence on mammoth was maybe a face-saving defense of their beliefs, or an honest assessment based mainly on the short claws and sunken ball.

Your idea that the Old Chief didn’t describe an elephant is probably correct. Although the idea that a very large animal needs to stand up always may be traceable to individual giant mammoth bones that would suggest a creature with immense legs without joints. Thus, the mammoth connection.

You say that “Thompson does not describe a fore paw track†so “we should be able to rule out Bear very quickly….†Here you are jumping to an unnecessary conclusion. Thompson does not describe a fore paw. He apparently measured only one track, a hind paw. That, to his satisfaction, told him it was bear.

And I must point out, nowhere in this story do you find mention of giant hairy men (apes). And Thompson,working the Pacific Northwest, living side by side with First Nation peoples and mapping great expanses of land, should have heard something. Don’t you think?

Edited August 1, 2013 by chelefoot
To remove video in quote

[Guest]

You've stated in the past that the apeish modern Bigfoot was born at bluff creek in the 1950's.

Before that it wasn't seen as an ape at all.....

 

Not true.  Several of the old 1800s accounts refer to "gorillas" in reference to "wildman" eyewitnesses.

WRabbit, on 17 Jul 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

It's a good story, but I believe it describes a bear attack.

 

 

Bears have been proven to exist.

 

Logical fallacy.  Circular reasoning.  To wit: the encounter cannot be evidence of a sasquatch because sasquatch have not been "proven" to exist to encounter.

By your faulty logic, no evidence is possible for sasquatch at all until sasquatch is "proven".

Edited August 1, 2013 by Mulder