Story Of Bf And A Hermit College Professor

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I read part of this story that was posted on the net in full but is now a book. Interesting but again no proof.

I read the book The Creature by Jan Klement this weekend. It only took about an hour to read, and I am sure many of you have read the book.

This story is a first hand account of a semi habituation of a bigfoot creature.

The author, Jan Klement (pseudonym), claims to be a professor at a university in southwestern Pennsylvania.

The story was fascinating, yet unbelievable at some points. The author also does not hide the fact that he is an alcoholic and has serious mental health issues. I'd bet that his ex-wife would agree with me on that.

I was giving the author the benefit of the doubt up until the part where he shoved the creature into the back of his station wagon and drove him 200 miles away, to protect him from hunters during deer season.

I did appreciate that he and the creature, who he named "Kong", would simply stare at each other for hours and that Kong seemed unaffected by things in the universe that trouble humans. As if the bigfoot was in nature much like the trees and the grass; just being.

I can't believe that as a scientist, he would not take Kong's dead body to a university to be "dissected", but that he would drive the dead body to a remote location and hack up his "best friend" with an axe. But then again, he is an alcoholic with obvious mental problems. (Sociopath?)

I did come away with a new perspective on bigfoot culture and I do believe that at least some of the incidents in the book are believable.

Last August, I got to visit with Autumn Williams and we had a great conversation on our way to the store. The experience that Jan Klement describes in his book, mirrors some events that Autumn has experienced herself.

Continue reading here:

The Creature by Jan Klement

Good topic. I thought I might mention the online version of "The Creature" is missing some info. It's probably been left out on purpose as it deals with Kong performing sexual acts with a cow, then later the professor's wife I am told......An interesting work of fiction but I wouldn't invest any $ in the book just to see those sexual parts. What's online is good enough for stories of fiction. Fiction is fine, a good story about a subject I'm interested in is always welcomed. Although a clever writer, I wouldn't read too much into the Professor's details about the creature. The details are clever but not based on truths, any details he may have included that are remotely close are mere guesses and were likely gathered elsewhere for the book. Good story but fictional of course.

Chris B.

[Guest]

For the record a new primate would have no reason to shake anyone up spiritually. It would just be another ape. It wouldn't shake things up any more than any other ancient bipedal ape finds.

Homo Erectus would have caused a bigger stir.

That's my take too. I see your point Hogsback and if I'm correctly reading between the lines you're alluding to folks for whom discovery of bigfoot would not be welcomed because it would somehow "prove evolution" which is something they would not want to see happen. Colossus has it right, however: such folks are quite adept at dealing with intermediate forms in the context of their belief system, and I really don't think bigfoot would present a problem for them. If we discovered a bigfoot that was gorilla-like, they could easily argue that it's "too different" from humans to matter. If we discovered a human-like bigfoot, they could just as easily argue that it is human, and therefore irrelevant.

But you're right - I should have clarified that I was referring to the active folks posting skeptically on the BFF. Different people can be skeptical for different reasons, and some of them might not want bigfoot "discovered."

[Guest nycBig]

..Kong performing sexual acts with a cow, then later the professor's wife...

[Guest]

Thanks, Sas. Thats just my take on the situation.

[Drew]

There are animals far more damning to anti-evolutionists than a giant hairy ape man. The freshwater fish in the Cenotes of the Yucatan come to mind.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Drew

[Guest RayG]

Musta' been. Never heard that crap before.

Loren is making reference (on pages 49 & 50) to what Beck himself mentioned in his own 1967 book, I Fought The Apemen of Mount St. Helens, written by his son R.A. Beck.

Your special relationship with Beckjord aside, I am skeptical of the accusation you level or forward.

It's not an accusation, Coleman was referencing material Beck himself had put in print, and anyone who dealt with Beckjord eventually heard of his supernatural/paranormal thoughts and ideas.

Here's a couple more references:

The "Hairy Giants," Beck wrote, "are not entirely of [this] world...[They] are from a lower plane. When the condition and vibration is at a certain frequency, they can easily, for a time, appear in a very solid body."(1)

The result was privately printed in 1967 under the title I Fought the Ape-Men of Mount Saint Helens. Some of the details of this late version have not made it into the second-hand accounts featured in Bigfoot books, and it is not hard to figure out why. In the amended version, Beck attests to his clairvoyant abilities and talks of giant Indian spirits who showed him and his partners the way to the mine, by virtue of an apparition in the form of a white arrow that apparently moved on its own. Beck is also quite firm in his pronouncement that the hairy apes were not animals in the conventional sense--he was convinced his attackers were not of this world.(2)

(1) Originally found in I Fought The Apemen of Mount St. Helens, by R.A. Beck, and quoted in Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot, by Michael McLeod, page 200.

(2) Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend, By David J. Daegling, page 70

All three references easily found using Google books.

RayG

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 06 October 2010 - 06:41 PM, said:

Musta' been. Never heard that crap before.

Loren is making reference (on pages 49 & 50) to what Beck himself mentioned in his own 1967 book, I Fought The Apemen of Mount St. Helens, written by his son R.A. Beck.

Thanks for the full context of Coleman's writings on the subject. It offers more to explain the "psychic" part of the situation, including:

Early one moring in about 1922, one of them came running to the camp and urged his fellows to followhim back to the creek, where he showed them two huge, somewhat humanlike tracks sunk four inches deep n the center of the sandbar. No other tracks were nearby. Because the nearest spot it could possibly have jumped to was 160 feet away, the men reasoned the creature had a huge stride, or "something dropped from the sky and went back up."

And:

....the Beck group's "mine was only a ridge or two away from Spirit Lake, so naamed by the Indians who believed it was the abode of evil spirits they called Siatcoes or Selahtiks."

In other words, they simply couldn't comprehend that pair of footprints, and the place was filled with aboriginal spiritual reference regarding these creatures. I can understand them coming to a full appreciation of the aboriginal beliefs and spooky stuff after having contact with these creatures.

More, Coleman speculated that it may have been his son injecting that stuff, because Beck did not mention such stuff earlier:

It's worthy of noting, however, that Fred Beck never mentioned the paranormal when Bigfooters interviewed him about his experiences in teh early 1960's. The paranormal elements appear to be merely reflections of Beck's temperament when he or his son would retell or write down teh story that resultined in their 1967 book. The news articles from the 1920's seem to be closer to the actual details of the event.

[Branco]

Can you provide for me an estimate of the number of such cases that qualify as habituations according to your criteria? Can you then provide for me an estimate of the number of such cases that have resulted in the collection of physical evidence to corroborate the stories? The answer will be contained in the ratio of the former to the latter.

That is not an answer to my question. So I'll ask you another to give you a second chance to play dodgeball. How many field investigation reports of such cases have YOU actually read? (If it is less than ten, don't even bother to respond; ------ and forget the origanl question. You ever been in politics?))

[Guest RayG]

It's also worth noting that Beck's book was published in 1967. More than 10 years later, John Green published his 1978 definitive tome Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us, writes about Beck's encounter, yet makes no mention of either Beck's book, or the paranormal aspects of it. Surely an experienced newspaperman like Green would have found out somehow about Beck's book and its content, given his interest in bigfoot, and the fact he actually sat down and interviewd Beck. Kinda strange that Beck wouldn't have mentioned anything about his book to Green when they're sitting there talking about bigfoot.

Green even says, "In some ways this is the best of the old stories". (page 97)

I don't recall any mention of paranormal aspects of the Beck story by Dahinden, Byrne, or Krantz either. Dr. Meldrum doesn't even mention of Beck in his book. Could it be the paranormal aspects soured him on the whole story? Pure speculation on my part, but it sure seems strange that such a classic bigfoot tale is completely missing from one of the latest published bigfoot works.

RayG

[Guest Kerchak]

Didn't Green and Dahinden speak to Beck long before he wrote his book? I believe they did. Perhaps later in life Beck, as many people do, might have started getting a bit more spiritual as the time to pass on was creeping closer and perhaps Beck looked back on his Ape Canyon encounter in a different way to how he viewed it when it happened in 1924. I don't believe any of the newspaper accounts of the time talked about any paranormal aspect to the 'apes' and it doesn't appear that Beck did at the time either or even later when he spoke to Green/Dahinden.

[Guest]

That is not an answer to my question. So I'll ask you another to give you a second chance to play dodgeball. How many field investigation reports of such cases have YOU actually read? (If it is less than ten, don't even bother to respond; ------ and forget the origanl question. You ever been in politics?))

If you have read post #110, I can only assume that you are the one interested in playing dodgeball.

[Drew]

Surely, you understood that, right? Didn't you see Ray's citation?

Of course I understood it, I was pointing out that your post was unclear who was suing whom.

And don't call me Shirley.

[georgerm]

georgerm, on 07 October 2010 - 07:34 AM, said:

If reports are fabricated, then each primate would take on different characteristics.

Saskeptic:

Why would you think that? If the person reported something that didn't look like a bigfoot, it wouldn't be reported as a bigfoot.

Let's not go sideways here............It would be reported as a new primate. Where are these reports? If stories are fabricated then each animal would take on different characteristics. One fellow would report a primate that was 4' tall, gray, old looking, and had reddish toes while another would fabricate another ficticious animal.......maybe a 7' tall creature with long black leg hair, short arms, and tall ears. This isn't the case. Most reports seems to confirm the same physical characteristics. There are a few copy cats who describe a common animal but not all. You can admit this and still remain a good skeptic since this really is not solid proof. A collection of second hand field observations is the beginning of the scientific process and could culminate with proof.

Edited October 10, 2010 by georgerm

[Guest]

Let's not go sideways here............It would be reported as a new primate. Where are these reports? If stories are fabricated then each animal would take on different characteristics. One fellow would report a primate that was 4' tall, gray, old looking, and had reddish toes while another would fabricate another ficticious animal.......maybe a 7' tall creature with long black leg hair, short arms, and tall ears. This isn't the case. Most reports seems to confirm the same physical characteristics. There are a few copy cats who describe a common animal but not all. You can admit this and still remain a good skeptic since this really is not solid proof. A collection of second hand field observations is the beginning of the scientific process and could culminate with proof.

I still don't get it. If native cultures in North America described these giant, hairy, wild people living in deep, dark forests, then I would expect people who make claims of having encountered such creatures to describe what they saw as something like a giant, hairy, wild person. Ergo, participation in the mythology would lead to a common bigfoot meme whether or not people are encountering real bigfoots.

Of course you must be familiar with the many reports that do report some variability in bigfoot appearance: gray ones, skinny ones, etc. There are non-conformist bigfoot reports. Then there are those that are so different that they don't get reported as "bigfoot", e.g., the "dogmen", "lizardmen", or "mothmen" stories.

[Branco]

I still don't get it. If native cultures in North America described these giant, hairy, wild people living in deep, dark forests, then I would expect people who make claims of having encountered such creatures to describe what they saw as something like a giant, hairy, wild person. Ergo, participation in the mythology would lead to a common bigfoot meme whether or not people are encountering real bigfoots.

Of course you must be familiar with the many reports that do report some variability in bigfoot appearance: gray ones, skinny ones, etc. There are non-conformist bigfoot reports. Then there are those that are so different that they don't get reported as "bigfoot", e.g., the "dogmen", "lizardmen", or "mothmen" stories.

Sas: If you will be so kind as to answer two question, I'll get off this thread.

First, how do you generally perceive or describe "habituation" as it applies to BF. As the human population continues to expand and build in those remote areas where BF have been reported for many generations; would you consider it "habituation" when those resident BF continue to forage in the areas now inhabited by humans? (If so, I'll not put you on the spot by asked which would be "habituator" and which would be "habituatee".)

Second, If you happened to be alone in remote part of some rugged river bottoms or mountains in broad daylight, and you had an unobstructed view of, and closley approached by 8 to 9 foot tall, hair-covered hominid that appeared to weigh in excess of 400 pounds, and the thing roared and screamed at you before it turned and walked out of sight into the woods, would you report that encounter on this board or in any public format?