Bauman Story

[Guest]

I consider myself to be a fairly objective person and don't quickly jump to fantastic conclusions. But sometimes a duck is a duck no matter what color you paint it or how many hairs you split to make it otherwise. The following is nothing more than my own opinion filtered through my own sense of objectivity, take it or leave it. I am open to other opinions as long as it doesn't require me to suspend the obvious.

 

In regards to the Bauman story: If this story had been in a "Goblin Stories" book authored by Teddy Roosevelt I would probably take it with more than a few grains of salt, but it isn't. TR was obviously impressed by Bauman and believed him enough to include his story in the book. Bauman believed his story as well and would become emotional about it at certain areas as witnessed by TR. Right there are two points that validate the story if you trust TR's sense of honor and judgment of character . . . and I do. TR indicates that Bauman must have heard of wild tales and superstitions originating from his German heritage and applies them to the beast but concedes that "but whether this was so or not, no man can say". He does not say that Bauman is a superstitious man prone to make things up. If Bauman had fabricated the story or was embellishing his experience with a particularly vicious bear, why is it not a more exciting adventure or a more terrifying account?

 

While it is true that BF is not mentioned by name or description in the story, there is very strong circumstantial evidence that BF is the culprit. Some now known BF behavioral traits are contained within the story. Did Bauman just happen to invent those by coincidence 80 - 100 years before modern day researchers began to consistently notice them during their investigations? It should also be noted that Bauman does not indicate the beast to definitely be bear or cougar either. The beast is assumed to be a bear initially after their camp is destroyed but determined to be something else as the story unfolds. The behavior exhibited by the beast is also not consistent with bears that I'm aware of either. There is also the large BIPEDAL footprints that two lifelong frontiersman and trappers could not readily attribute to a known forest animal. Firm indications of bipedalism is the stop sign that prevents any animals other than BF from being considered . . . period. This may be why TR was so fascinated with the story, Bauman's sincerity and the presence of an unknown (bipedal) beast. TR did have knowledge of BF/wild man lore through his Indian contacts as mentioned in this same book and as indicated in the second paragraph of this story. If it was just another bear story, why would TR have bothered with it at all? It is also possible that Bauman, in his brief and terror filled observation of his companion's body, could have misidentified deep claw marks for fang marks or even overlooked other details. 
 
In the case of Thompson, the Indian guides knew full well what made the tracks but Thompson discarded their explanation. Thompson, being a white explorer, had no context or category in which to place the tracks outside of native beliefs. It is obvious that both he and the guides considered the tracks to be a significant find and looked upon them as being exceptional and noteworthy. It was considered to be so highly unusual that it caused them to pause and study it for some time. If they had done this to every bear track they encountered along their journey there would be a volume dedicated to just that alone. Thompson himself has difficulty trying to digest what he is observing and writing it's description in his journal. He is unsure what he is looking at or how to interpret it but compares it to a bear track for lack of context. If this track had indeed been made by some large old bear I don't think we would be having this debate today as Thompson and his guides would have quickly identified it as such. You must take into totality the Indian guide's opinion of the track (they must have seen it before) + Thompson's fascination with the track + the overall difficulty he had identifying what exactly made it = not a bear track but something else that was equally large and unknown. What could have that unknown been?

 

And I'm sorry, but the whole Mammoth thing is absolutely ridiculous to me. If Mammoths were around even within 100 years of this time period, Indian pictographs and other art depicting them would be abundant. The Mammoth would figure more prominently in their culture. 

 

Unfortunately, we cannot interrogate Bauman and Thompson for more details of their accounts to conclude these stories to our satisfaction. And I'm not going to sit here an proclaim absolutely, positively, unequivocally that what they encountered was a BF, I wasn't there and can't say. It is clear however, based on their own testimony as experienced outdoors-men, that they had crossed paths with something that was unknown to them. They had difficulty trying to rationalize what they had observed. We must therefore conclude that they had experienced something other than a known forest animal. What animal could that have been? I submit that based on the data that we have today you could make a strong argument for it being a BF.

 

Something else to consider: Not everyone in North America may have known what certain types of large apes looked liked (or any monkey for that matter) prior to 1870. The first scientific study of Gorilla bones did not occur until 1847 and live ones were not observed by Europeans until the mid 1850's with corpses brought to the UK in 1861 (Wikipedia). Maybe a few years after that (or perhaps longer in areas away from big cities) before they were widely known to the public in general and easily recognizable. Dismissing what may be interpreted as early BF sightings simply because no references to apes or monkeys are mentioned is pure ignorance. The lack of primate references does not make these reports any less valid. People who had never seen a large primate (or pictures there of) may have had no reference to compare their sighting to and simply described it as a big hairy wild man or just a wild man.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Norseman,

I’ll be going to Old Mexico this Saturday and will be gone a week. Right now I’m strapped for time. I’ll address some issues now and the rest when I return. Hope this will suffice for the time being.

Why did Thompson mention the incident forty years later? No mystery there. He was punching up his narrative because he was hoping to publish it. Sadly, he never did have it published in his lifetime.

Thompson identifies these tracks as bear. The tracks were somewhat larger than an average grizzly, so he believed they came from an old, large bear. His so-called “confusion†is exaggerated by enthusiasts. Remember, at no time does Thompson say the track way is bipedal. In his first narrative, he says the tracks “very much resembles a large Bear’s Track.†Very much.

He does not give a “vacillating account,†he says its bear. You wonder why he does not mention a fore-paw track that would definitive identify bear. I don’t think he needed to. But, given your scenario, why didn’t he mention that there were NO fore-paw tracks, and therefore it wasn’t a bear. Now THAT would have been a confusing fact for Thompson to have encountered.

You argue that I am “attempting to replace one legend within the story and shoe horn in another.†This is an incredible interpretation of the issue. Sasquatch does not exist “within the story.†It has been shoe-horned in the Thompson story by enthusiasts during the 1960’s. Find me one source prior to “Bigfoot†(i.e., before the late 1950’s and 1960’s) that specifically join the Thompson account to “wild men†tales, hairy giant Indians, or apes in the American wilds.

Within the context of the times, yes, the idea that mammoths might exist in the great unknown continent was an idea shared among folks of European ancestry. I posted enough sources above that should put this part of our dispute, at least, behind us. (Even Jefferson mentions mammoths in his NOTES ON VIRGINIA.)

You wonder why the explorers and frontiersmen “Take no notice at all of the legends of wild ape men running wild in the woods according to the same tribes of Indians†that believe in mammoths. That is a good question. The answer is that they probably never heard such stories. Why wouldn’t Thompson mention those kinds of stories if he was familiar with them? And why didn’t Thompson run into one of these creatures himself?

The 1840 letter from Rev. Elkanah Walker identifies a “superstition†from some local First Nation peoples. He had the right interpretation. The idea that a “race of giants which inhabit a certain mountain off to the west,†as well as the rest of Walker’s statement, sure sound like universal myth to me. You may see such stories as suggesting preexisting accounts of sasquatch. I would be more inclined to see them as expressing certain archetypes found in folklore. (For instance, “giants†live in “mountains,†-- large people existing in large landscapes, corresponding archetypes).

You conclude from two old accounts that “a different race of human beings from humans, that eat men and live in the mountains†and ask: “So are we to believe that this myth is only 50 years old then?†Are you suggesting that Ruby Creek, Roe, Bluff Creek, Crew, Patterson, etc., are accounts of “a different race of human beings from humans, that eat men ….�

You say I “seem to be describing a European/ American society in the 1800’s as gaga over mysterious Elephant creatures running loose in the wild of North America, but a mysterious Ape man as not being present in their minds at all.†I don’t know how “gaga†the general populace was concerning mammoths, but remember those who were interested in the issue had solid evidence that mammoths did in fact once exist in North America. Show me the evidence that “European/American society in the 1800’s†had in fact recognized “a mysterious Ape man†in the hinterland. Surely you must admit, unlike the mammoth, no hard evidence for the existence, even prior existence, of a mysterious ape man in North America was available to the 1800’s society. And that after two centuries nothing has changed in that regard.

[roguefooter]

Jerrywayne-

 

In the NAWAC thread you said this:

 

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

 

Jacko was referred to as a 'wild man', as well as this account before Jacko:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36556-stanislaus-california-1870-wild-man/

 

Notice the part where he states "I positively assure you that this gorilla, or wild man, or whatever you choose to call it, is no myth." Right there we have a direct quote of a gorilla/ape being referred to as a 'wild man'.

 

So wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that 'wild man' was the term they would have used at the time (and did use) if they were to reference any indigenous apes or apelike creatures?

Edited August 14, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest]

Norseman,

A quick note. Nothing in Bigfoot advocacy is as straightforward as sometimes assumed by enthusiasts. Consider the "Tsimshian tribal Sasquatch mask - 1850." My cursory look into this could not verify the "1850" timeline. Maybe you have more info. In any event, the mask was donated to the Peabody prior to the coinage of the word "Sasquatch." It is designated as the "Tsimshian monkey mask." To confuse matters more, it may represent as well a "land otter" with the admixture of human traits (on religious grounds.)

Chris Murphy, the enthusiast, has offered this: "Other than a sasquatch, the only plausible explanation for the source for of the image is a pet monkey brought to North America by an early European sailor."

Roquefooter,

Thanks for the article. I remember reading it before now. I'm thinking the letter writer was trying to literally describe a gorilla, a cultural meme appropriate for that time. As to "wild man" equals ape, may yes in some circumstance, maybe no in others. Certainly J.W. Burns' sasquatch was no ape.

My point about "Jacko": if it was common knowledge that such a creature as sasquatch actually existed (and especially in B.C.), why then were folks (according to the article) oblivious to what they had found? Why did it take Green in the 1950's to link it to sasquatch? (We shouldn't forget the article itself was probably a hoax.)

[norseman]

JW,

Iam fishing this week with my son on the pend oreille river. Ill reply more later, but one thing I take exception to is that the term Sasquatch was never coined. It was stolen from native Americans unlike the term Bigfoot.

Have fun in Mexico and have a margarita for me.

[norseman]

Norseman,

I’ll be going to Old Mexico this Saturday and will be gone a week. Right now I’m strapped for time. I’ll address some issues now and the rest when I return. Hope this will suffice for the time being.

Why did Thompson mention the incident forty years later? No mystery there. He was punching up his narrative because he was hoping to publish it. Sadly, he never did have it published in his lifetime.

I'm back, hope your having fun in Mexico.

And why do you think he was choosing that story to create excitement about publishing his memoir?

Thompson identifies these tracks as bear. The tracks were somewhat larger than an average grizzly, so he believed they came from an old, large bear. His so-called “confusion†is exaggerated by enthusiasts. Remember, at no time does Thompson say the track way is bipedal. In his first narrative, he says the tracks “very much resembles a large Bear’s Track.†Very much.

He does not give a “vacillating account,†he says its bear. You wonder why he does not mention a fore-paw track that would definitive identify bear. I don’t think he needed to. But, given your scenario, why didn’t he mention that there were NO fore-paw tracks, and therefore it wasn’t a bear. Now THAT would have been a confusing fact for Thompson to have encountered.

Again, your attempting to over simplify the narrative of the story in order to make your point. You did the same thing in the Bauman story. You probably are not even aware that your doing it. He states that it is a Bear and then lists off traits that were not that of a Bear..........traits that correspond with current Sasquatch traits in tracks. And this is why there is a interest in this story by the modern Sasquatch community. When you increase the overall size of a large Bear hind foot track, take away the claws and increase the ball of the foot? Your talking about a Sasquatch track and we observe tracks like this even today.

You argue that I am “attempting to replace one legend within the story and shoe horn in another.†This is an incredible interpretation of the issue. Sasquatch does not exist “within the story.†It has been shoe-horned in the Thompson story by enthusiasts during the 1960’s. Find me one source prior to “Bigfoot†(i.e., before the late 1950’s and 1960’s) that specifically join the Thompson account to “wild men†tales, hairy giant Indians, or apes in the American wilds.

I hold firm to the fact that you have not demonstrated exactly what a "mammoth" was in the Thompson story according to Indian legend. Something very large that sleeps while standing could apply to a large Ape just as easily as a large Elephant.

Within the context of the times, yes, the idea that mammoths might exist in the great unknown continent was an idea shared among folks of European ancestry. I posted enough sources above that should put this part of our dispute, at least, behind us. (Even Jefferson mentions mammoths in his NOTES ON VIRGINIA.)

You wonder why the explorers and frontiersmen “Take no notice at all of the legends of wild ape men running wild in the woods according to the same tribes of Indians†that believe in mammoths. That is a good question. The answer is that they probably never heard such stories. Why wouldn’t Thompson mention those kinds of stories if he was familiar with them? And why didn’t Thompson run into one of these creatures himself?

I have no idea why Thompson would not be familiar with such stories. The Spokane Indians and Ft. Colville were directly in Thompson's back yard so to speak. And yet the legend is recorded by a missionary instead. Maybe Thompson isn't that good at recording accounts?

The 1840 letter from Rev. Elkanah Walker identifies a “superstition†from some local First Nation peoples. He had the right interpretation. The idea that a “race of giants which inhabit a certain mountain off to the west,†as well as the rest of Walker’s statement, sure sound like universal myth to me. You may see such stories as suggesting preexisting accounts of sasquatch. I would be more inclined to see them as expressing certain archetypes found in folklore. (For instance, “giants†live in “mountains,†-- large people existing in large landscapes, corresponding archetypes).

But yet the Old Chief's account is that of a Mammoth..........your cherry picking your legend stories.

Sc'wen'ey'ti is the name for Sasquatch in the Spokane Indian language. You can simply ask the Spokane Indians yourself if they themselves find a correlation between the modern Sasquatch and Sc'wen'ey'ti (they do). BTW the term Sasquatch is stolen from the Chehalis Indian term "Sesquac".

You conclude from two old accounts that “a different race of human beings from humans, that eat men and live in the mountains†and ask: “So are we to believe that this myth is only 50 years old then?†Are you suggesting that Ruby Creek, Roe, Bluff Creek, Crew, Patterson, etc., are accounts of “a different race of human beings from humans, that eat men ….�

And that are giants, look like apes depicted in Indian art work, smell bad, are nocturnal, etc, etc? I see a direct correlation, absolutely.

Science from the fossil record also believes that different species of hominids cannibalized on each other. A Robustus finger was found in Homo Erectus fire pit. So the Indian legends are not out of step with what science now knows about hominid evolution.

You say I “seem to be describing a European/ American society in the 1800’s as gaga over mysterious Elephant creatures running loose in the wild of North America, but a mysterious Ape man as not being present in their minds at all.†I don’t know how “gaga†the general populace was concerning mammoths, but remember those who were interested in the issue had solid evidence that mammoths did in fact once exist in North America. Show me the evidence that “European/American society in the 1800’s†had in fact recognized “a mysterious Ape man†in the hinterland. Surely you must admit, unlike the mammoth, no hard evidence for the existence, even prior existence, of a mysterious ape man in North America was available to the 1800’s society. And that after two centuries nothing has changed in that regard.

That is a very narrow interpretation on your part. In the 1800's and early 1900's, Europeans were exploring the hinterlands on all points of the compass for cryptid apes. And in fact this pursuit is still under taken in earnest, with the Bili Ape and fossil remains of Homo Floresiensis.

 

Deloy's ape:

 

 

Are you suggesting that nobody was out in the hinterlands looking?
 

Edited August 19, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

Norseman,

I’m back from Mexico. Didn’t have a margarita. My wife is Mexicana and we have a house in Toluca in central Mexico. As is the custom in Mexico, we did have a little tequila with limon (lime.)

One day as my wife and I walked down a street that had plumbing and hardware stores, I noticed hand painted signage on one storefront that had three words and the last word was “yeti.†I did not recognize the first two words and wondered if “yeti†meant what I thought it did. Sure enough, further down the storefront wall was a caricature of a white, hairy, human like (no cone-head) yeti. I pointed out “Bigfoot†to my wife and we both laughed because of my interest in the subject and the coincidence.

I still have to catch up here with a backlog of work; I’ll be able to devote more time to this thread later in the week.

Suffice for now: I think I have provided primary and secondary sources that ably show Thompson was addressing the issue of mammoths. You’re not convinced, and that is your right of course. So, let’s try this: can you provide unambiguous documentation that Thompson did not think he was looking at a bear track? Do you have any primary source or even secondary source that states the track way had no fore-paws and was bipedal and could not have been a bear?

In addition, am I correct to assume that you mean to defend the idea that sasquatch was commonly known to exist in America in the 1700’s, 1800’s, and the early part of the 1900’s? It sure sounds like you are.

[Guest]

Oh, BTW. You posted the photo of the spider monkey that de Loys tried to pass off as an ape, and you ask, "Are you suggesting that nobody was out in the hinterlands looking?" If memory serves me, de Loys was not "out in the hinterlands looking" for apes.

[Guest]

Somewhere along the line it was assumed here that I denied accounts prior to the 1950’s. Since I’ve read many of those accounts over the years, for many years, I know that newspaper stories and other sources mention such things as wild people, gorillas, and hairy humans and reported in various locations in the U.S.A. during the 1800s and 1900s. Those accounts do exist. So, I must be saying something else.

I am saying this: modern belief in ape-like men or men-like apes in popular culture, known as Bigfoot or sasquatch, has nothing to do with anomalous stories that pop up occasionally and sparsely in the historical record, other than both are reflections of “wild people†folklore memes found in most cultures. The historical stories were rediscovered, publicized, and employed by Bigfoot advocates to give their newly minted myth a back-story and give it historical continuity and credibility.

I am saying that most Bigfoot advocates are advocates, directly or indirectly, because of what happened in B.C. and California in the late 1950s and 1960s. Most enthusiasts are enthusiasts because of a chain of events that go back no further than Ruby Creek, Ostman, Roe, Crew, Bluff Creek, Blue Mountain Road, etc. I’m saying that if Dahinden, Green, Roe, Sanderson, Wallace, Patterson, and others there and then had not existed, there would be no Bigfoot myth today.

This assumes that almost all of the sightings and inconclusive photos, the track ways and other evidence since the 1950s would not have happened because the myth that feeds and even creates such “evidence†would not have happened. This means, for instance, that Paul Freeman would not have thought to fake tracks and videos of Bigfoot because he had no myth to inspire him in that direction. On a different level, this means the common Joe that comes back from his hunting trip with a Bigfoot story today would never have thought the fleeting glimpse of something hairy moving in the bush was anything other than a known animal, and his Bigfoot story would never had existed had the myth never existed.

You may ask: What about the historical record? Doesn’t it back up the modern myth? Not really. If it did, the myth would have been well known and publicized a hundred years or more before Green and company. What we find in the record are anomalies that cause a local fuss for a few days, provide no definitive evidence, and are usually not mentioned again and are forgotten. Some of the stories are probably outright fabrications made by in-house editors during slow weeks, or by an outside “correspondent†looking to sell a story. We know that both activities have happened during the history of newsprint. Other stories may be based on real people, homeless in the hinterland, or hermits. Other stories are cultural reflections of the times, when the general public became aware of the implications of Darwinism and explorers’ tales of man-like apes like the gorilla became publicized.

Some “historical accounts of Bigfoot†are historical, but need not involve Bigfoot. The ape canyon apes had four toes and long pointy ears. Sasquatch? Hmmm? The park ranger who heard from the miners themselves had never found any evidence of such “mountain devils†in all his years in the area. If they were there, they made their selves known only to some miners over the coarse of a couple of days and then disappeared from the natural fauna, and history.

Some tales are drafted for Bigfoot duty by ignoring their contexts. Take the “Wild Man of the Navidad†story. Craig Woolheater employs the old Texas tale in order to give historical precedence to his belief that Bigfoot is part of Texas’ fauna.

http://www.forteanswest.com/lowfiguesteditorial-CraigWoolheater0909.html

But does the old story really support the modern lore?

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txrefugi/WildManoftheNavidadVictAdv.htm

Edited September 2, 2013 by jerrywayne

[norseman]

Norseman,

I’m back from Mexico. Didn’t have a margarita. My wife is Mexicana and we have a house in Toluca in central Mexico. As is the custom in Mexico, we did have a little tequila with limon (lime.)

One day as my wife and I walked down a street that had plumbing and hardware stores, I noticed hand painted signage on one storefront that had three words and the last word was “yeti.†I did not recognize the first two words and wondered if “yeti†meant what I thought it did. Sure enough, further down the storefront wall was a caricature of a white, hairy, human like (no cone-head) yeti. I pointed out “Bigfoot†to my wife and we both laughed because of my interest in the subject and the coincidence.

I still have to catch up here with a backlog of work; I’ll be able to devote more time to this thread later in the week.

Suffice for now: I think I have provided primary and secondary sources that ably show Thompson was addressing the issue of mammoths. You’re not convinced, and that is your right of course. So, let’s try this: can you provide unambiguous documentation that Thompson did not think he was looking at a bear track? Do you have any primary source or even secondary source that states the track way had no fore-paws and was bipedal and could not have been a bear?

In addition, am I correct to assume that you mean to defend the idea that sasquatch was commonly known to exist in America in the 1700’s, 1800’s, and the early part of the 1900’s? It sure sounds like you are.

 

 

A) Why do you think Bigfoot enthusiasts grab hold of the Thompson account so strongly, if it simply was describing a Bear track? He gives measurements, a description and does not note any definitive fore paw in the track way of a Bear. In a world where the PGF is dismissed off hand, I'm not really sure how much value is in this account. But it is compelling in my book. But I have never found any collaborating material as to what was going through his head that day or in years since. 

 

B )If we are to include Indian myths? Absolutely.

Oh, BTW. You posted the photo of the spider monkey that de Loys tried to pass off as an ape, and you ask, "Are you suggesting that nobody was out in the hinterlands looking?" If memory serves me, de Loys was not "out in the hinterlands looking" for apes.

 

No, he was looking for oil...........so why bother with Indian myths and cryptid apes in the south American jungle? Obviously because he harbored some mystery Ape fantasies of his own.

Edited September 2, 2013 by norseman

[norseman]

Somewhere along the line it was assumed here that I denied accounts prior to the 1950’s. Since I’ve read many of those accounts over the years, for many years, I know that newspaper stories and other sources mention such things as wild people, gorillas, and hairy humans and reported in various locations in the U.S.A. during the 1800s and 1900s. Those accounts do exist. So, I must be saying something else.

I am saying this: modern belief in ape-like men or men-like apes in popular culture, known as Bigfoot or sasquatch, has nothing to do with anomalous stories that pop up occasionally and sparsely in the historical record, other than both are reflections of “wild people†folklore memes found in most cultures. The historical stories were rediscovered, publicized, and employed by Bigfoot advocates to give their newly minted myth a back-story and give it historical continuity and credibility.

I am saying that most Bigfoot advocates are advocates, directly or indirectly, because of what happened in B.C. and California in the late 1950s and 1960s. Most enthusiasts are enthusiasts because of a chain of events that go back no further than Ruby Creek, Ostman, Roe, Crew, Bluff Creek, Blue Mountain Road, etc. I’m saying that if Dahinden, Green, Roe, Sanderson, Wallace, Patterson, and others there and then had not existed, there would be no Bigfoot myth today.

This assumes that almost all of the sightings and inconclusive photos, the track ways and other evidence since the 1950s would not have happened because the myth that feeds and even creates such “evidence†would not have happened. This means, for instance, that Paul Freeman would not have thought to fake tracks and videos of Bigfoot because he had no myth to inspire him in that direction. On a different level, this means the common Joe that comes back from his hunting trip with a Bigfoot story today would never have thought the fleeting glimpse of something hairy moving in the bush was anything other than a known animal, and his Bigfoot story would never had existed had the myth never existed.

You may ask: What about the historical record? Doesn’t it back up the modern myth? Not really. If it did, the myth would have been well known and publicized a hundred years or more before Green and company. What we find in the record are anomalies that cause a local fuss for a few days, provide no definitive evidence, and are usually not mentioned again and are forgotten. Some of the stories are probably outright fabrications made by in-house editors during slow weeks, or by an outside “correspondent†looking to sell a story. We know that both activities have happened during the history of newsprint. Other stories may be based on real people, homeless in the hinterland, or hermits. Other stories are cultural reflections of the times, when the general public became aware of the implications of Darwinism and explorers’ tales of man-like apes like the gorilla became publicized.

Some “historical accounts of Bigfoot†are historical, but need not involve Bigfoot. The ape canyon apes had four toes and long pointy ears. Sasquatch? Hmmm? The park ranger who heard from the miners themselves had never found any evidence of such “mountain devils†in all his years in the area. If they were there, they made their selves known only to some miners over the coarse of a couple of days and then disappeared from the natural fauna, and history.

Some tales are drafted for Bigfoot duty by ignoring their contexts. Take the “Wild Man of the Navidad†story. Craig Woolheater employs the old Texas tale in order to give historical precedence to his belief that Bigfoot is part of Texas’ fauna.

http://www.forteanswest.com/lowfiguesteditorial-CraigWoolheater0909.html

But does the old story really support the modern lore?

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txrefugi/WildManoftheNavidadVictAdv.htm

 

 

Well............I'll remind you gladly as to where the notion came from...........you 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.

 

You very conveniently left out all of the newspaper articles dating back a hundred years about Ape men running amok in the wilds of north America.

 

There is no "big bang" in Bigfoot lore, where nothing existed before and then presto! Take for example Dahinden.........where did he get the idea from? He got it from his employer while working on a dairy farm........ultimately this "lore" begins with the native Americans themselves.

[Guest]

norseman, on 02 Sept 2013 - 2:55 PM, said:

Well............I'll remind you gladly as to where the notion came from...........you 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.

You very conveniently left out all of the newspaper articles dating back a hundred years about Ape men running amok in the wilds of north America.

There is no "big bang" in Bigfoot lore, where nothing existed before and then presto! Take for example Dahinden.........where did he get the idea from? He got it from his employer while working on a dairy farm........ultimately this "lore" begins with the native Americans themselves.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Norseman,

You're mistaken.

Ask yourself why no one had an idea as to what made the Crew tracks? If giant bipedal apes were common knowledge in the area, why did the locals scratch their heads and wonder what left the tracks? Even Titmus originally thought the tracks were made by a mentally challenged but very large Indian youth said to live nearby.

Did you read my post carefully? I did acknowledge the newspaper accounts, the ones you say I "very conveniently left out." There are issues with such accounts, as I pointed out. If you think there is a preponderance of "Ape men running amok in the wilds of north America." stories in the historical record, you are again mistaken. Some stories clearly refer to humans. Others to gorillas. Some to hairy humans. You have to show that the general population and individuals that should know were aware or knew of such animals we call Bigfoot. For instance, does Twain, or Audubon, or Lewis, or Muir, or Bridger, etc., etc. EVER mention in their works or correspondence or comments an undocumented giant bipedal primate the size of an elk living in North America? What you propose in place of undeniable evidence of common knowledge of such animals, and if they existed there would be a common knowledge, are scattered newspaper clippings of "apemen" accounts (and I add: alongside the newspaper stories of lake monsters, dragon like creatures, flying reptiles, etc.)

Dahinden was wanting to chase the yeti of the Himalayas. He was told instead about the B.C. Indian lore concerning the sasquatch people and in his investigations converted the giant Indian tribe into yeti-like animals. Rather than accepting the First Nation stories of a human sasquatch, he latched on to his heart's desire, created by the worldwide reports and romance of the far away and exotic Asian yeti, and made the sasquatch an undocumented ape. He converted Green, and the rest is history.

The newspaper stories you mention never created a wide-spread knowledge of apes in America. Why are the stories detached from any recognition of what they are purported to show? For instance, why did the 1884 Jacko story headline state -- What Is It? A Strange Creature Captured Above Yale. A British Columbia Gorilla? This is striking because this event was alleged to have occurred in the heart of sasquatch country, where the locals ought to have known from their trapper friends, hunters, Indians, railway builders, etc. what the creature was. There weren't many options, were there?

Look at Chad Arment's "The Historical Bigfoot: Early Reports of Wild Men, Hairy Giants, and Wandering Gorillas in North America." Enthusiasts look at his collection as a vindication of their beliefs. I note something different. Overall, the number of accounts is small. I would have thought more, not less. For instance, Bipto and his cohorts have had more Bigfoot sightings in Area X in Oklahoma the last few years than Arment documents for the whole state between 1849 and 1926!

I was born the same year Shipton found his yeti track. I became interested in mystery animals and "maybe monsters" while I was in grade school, and read everything I could find about the yeti, Nessie, Nandi bear, etc. The idea that North American was home to a giant bipedal ape never entered the picture then. Read Heuvelmans, the most important chronicler of the cryptozoo in history, and you will find him absent in acknowledging knowledge of sasquatch. When America's Abominable Snowman appeared on the scene with Sanderson and Green, I went along. And believe me, for many, many years it was a lonely walk. When I pressed the issue with family and friends, they had never even heard of such a thing. Had I only known then what enthusiasts know now, that Texas and Oklahoma are home states to populations of Bigfoot, I would have looked. Nobody knew back then -- it took a few decades for the Bluff Creek Bigfoot to migrate down here.

Edited September 3, 2013 by jerrywayne

[Guest]

A) Why do you think Bigfoot enthusiasts grab hold of the Thompson account so strongly, if it simply was describing a Bear track? He gives measurements, a description and does not note any definitive fore paw in the track way of a Bear. In a world where the PGF is dismissed off hand, I'm not really sure how much value is in this account. But it is compelling in my book. But I have never found any collaborating material as to what was going through his head that day or in years since. 

 

B )If we are to include Indian myths? Absolutely.

 

No, he was looking for oil...........so why bother with Indian myths and cryptid apes in the south American jungle? Obviously because he harbored some mystery Ape fantasies of his own.

Norseman,

Bigfoot advocates "grab hold" of Thompson's account for the same reason they cling to TR's story. They make it look like important historical figures also encountered Bigfoot, indirectly, like you did when you originally mentioned TR on another thread. No one before the advent of Bigfoot lore and advocacy would have read Thompson and concluded he was viewing ape tracks. No one.

De Loys may well have "harbored some mystery Ape fantasies of his own," given the fact of apes in Africa and given the fact that South America, like Africa, counted monkeys as part of its inventory of animal species. Where there are monkeys, are there apes too?

[norseman]

1) It's quite possible that the whites encountering the "crew" tracks had no idea about Indian legends of the area..........the obviously didn't know much about white Californian legends about them either. This does nothing to bolster your position that this is the "singularity" moment of creation of the legend.

 

2) Your acknowledging them NOW..........you didn't previously or in the NAWAC thread. If I'm wrong? Please point to my error.

 

3) Just to clarify? Ape men or Wild north american Gorilla newspaper clippings = Bigfoot = Sasquatch = Stick Indian = Bukwas = every Indian legend about a upright walking hairy Ape man living in the wild.

 

4) A human Sasquatch? What part of Ape MAN do you not understand? Or for that matter Bauman's use of the term "half man, half devil"? Do we proponents not get into knock down drag outs about what Sasquatch exactly is to this day? Ape MAN articles predate Dahinden and Green by many decades..............again there is no crux moment of this creature going from a deranged native American to an Ape. Although some people to this very day on this very forum do not believe it is a Ape, they think it is a human.

 

A single body will settle this dispute, but if I'm reading an account from the 1880's about a miner running into a wild "Gorilla" in the mountains...........I don't think it's a stretch to connect the dots between the story and Sasquatch. You seem to throw the story out because the old miner didn't use the proper terminology.

 

5) I'm not at area X, so I cannot say, but it's doubtful that farmers and miners and other hard working folks of that age gone by had oodles of time to go out dedicate their lives to the search for this creature. They were too busy getting the wood in the wood shed and the hay in the barn to spend a whole lot of time going after one. In fact that is why one mountain man, can't remember which one, fled his parents homestead and "ran off to the mountains".

 

6) My father and mother are from western Washington..........and they predate the 50's. In fact my great great grandfather Lou Robbers was the first Mayor of Index, Washington. I'm telling you matter of factly, that despite what you read in books.............stories of Apes, Ape men, Ape like men, Gorillas, Mountain Devils.......Skookum, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, whatever the heck you want to call them have been around for a very very long time.

 

The only place I'm going to agree with you, is that it has become more popular with time. But unlike you I do not see it as a big bang, but as a crescendo gaining strength.

 

I've seen tracks, good tracks, not some sort of forest divot that kinda sorta if you look just so might be..............track, ONCE IN MY LIFETIME. And if I was living in the 1880's? I probably would have had no clear picture of what is was that might have made that track. No books to read, no people to talk to other than immediate family, maybe a Indian kid down the road? 

 

So yes, with the modern age comes the explosion of ideas, and interconnectness of human thought. But that doesn't mean that there was not something there before.

Norseman,

Bigfoot advocates "grab hold" of Thompson's account for the same reason they cling to TR's story. They make it look like important historical figures also encountered Bigfoot, indirectly, like you did when you originally mentioned TR on another thread. No one before the advent of Bigfoot lore and advocacy would have read Thompson and concluded he was viewing ape tracks. No one.

De Loys may well have "harbored some mystery Ape fantasies of his own," given the fact of apes in Africa and given the fact that South America, like Africa, counted monkeys as part of its inventory of animal species. Where there are monkeys, are there apes too?

 

Well "known" Apes have a divergent big toe don't they? Insert "Giant" in place of "Ape"? And I have no idea how anyone could conclude otherwise. Wether you like it or not? The man described a Sasquatch track. A dead ringer for what people see in the forests today.............hoaxed or not. Maybe there is a ancient sect of Indian cult that perpetrates these hoaxes?

 

You asked me to show examples of "explorers" who were out in the hinter lands looking for cryptid apes...........I did that. And now you admit that they do indeed exist, these crazy explorers, but where justified by it because of the presence of monkeys? I'm confused. What does monkeys have to do with anything? 

Edited September 3, 2013 by norseman

[norseman]

Maybe I've brought this up or maybe I haven't.

 

What animal is not present on the landscape in the first of January? Maybe again this adds to Thompson's confusion............as mine.

Edited September 3, 2013 by norseman