Anatomy of a Hoaxer and Why they are Fascinated with Us.
Why do some people try to pull the wool over other’s eyes? I think there are many reasons and to name a few, there is to push an agenda, to gain notoriety and to make a buck. Some of course are just for fun as well, so not all hoaxers come from the same mold, but those who deliberately misinform to gain a profit of some kind, we should try and peer inside their heads.

While I have been interested in Cryptozology ever since I was very young, the hoaxer is only a fairly recent phenomenon for me. I certainly was aware of their existence, but I mainly thought of it as innocent fun and a buyer beware sort of thing. I knew money could be made off of a good hoax and we have PT Barnum from Barnum and Bailey to thank for the famous quote “A sucker is born every minute” to know that if you make an outrageous claim, there will be many who will line up to buy what you are selling without so much as a second glance. (Actually he says a customer is born every minute, but when quoted customer is usually replaced with sucker and I believe that is because that is what he meant) In that respect you only have yourself to blame if you have fallen for such foolery.

As far as Bigfoot is concerned, hoaxers could be behind the brunt of the evidence pile. I am not making that assertion at this time, but I will contend that Barnum’s suckers have given many with a mind to, a fertile field in which to sow their seeds.

So what hides in the mind of one who would take advantage of a gullible soul? Some I think pull hoaxes as reenactments of something they feel they have experienced, but were not fortunate enough to capture anything proof wise that would substantiate their claims. They were unprepared for their once in a lifetime chance, so go about re-creating proof to back their story. These are not necessarily bad people, but they are not doing us any favors. One of my favorite videos could be one such act. The Freeman films, which I love, could possibly be Paul reenacting something he believed in, but wasn’t fortunate enough to capture on film. On this one I hope I am wrong, because it is one of my all-time favorite videos.

Another type of hoaxer has no love for Bigfoot other than the dollar signs he imagines will line his wallet. He is all about using ignorance to gain his notoriety and money. Of those, there are lazy ones and ones that go to extremes. The best videos and photos we have ever seen are one of two things. They are either a well-made hoax or the real deal. So mostly we know the names of those who are either very lucky or very creative in an unscrupulous way.

I want to talk about two pieces of evidence and describe the difference between them. The first is the Patterson/Gimlin film and the second is the Tent video by Rick Dyer. One by the way I have no doubt whatsoever is a hoax and the other I consider to be the pinnacle of Sasquatch videos, hoax or not.

With the PG film, the vidographers have the benefit of time and the lack of technology back then, to bolster their claim. While it is not up to the audience to prove a hoax was committed for it to be so, with PG the attempt to debunk it has gone on for nearly 50 years. I will even go so far as to say, with time and technology, there has only been a further push to its authenticity. This was not just a lucky, chance encounter which I had believed for a long time, but a two plus week excursion in the California Mountains where at the end they hit gold or at least something just as valuable. So hoax or not, what Patterson and Gimlin did was put forth the idea that a good hoax can make you almost as much money as the real deal.

Rick Dyer’s tent video and claims on the other hand fall flat on the source all by itself. You would seemingly think a hoaxer would not get a pass on a second, third, fourth or even fifth attempt at a failed Bigfoot ploy, but then you would be wrong. Why? Because what Barnum said is very true. It really comes down to two things. A person wanting something so badly that they suspend rational and critical thinking and second, as preposterous as the claims may be, they are made unflinchingly by the person making them.

So as a believer in Dyer, you cannot doubt that you have something invested in his claims that comprise the majority of your proof, because honestly, everything points to this being just another hoax and I mean everything, yet he still has holdouts.
So why can those who believe, take the scant little, and ignore the rest and form a belief that should be just the opposite? Because they need it to be true. If you at this point believe Rick at all, you either have not been paying attention or you have so much invested in his story that you will never see it any other way.

In some ways we can learn a great deal about ourselves when we watch this particular hoax in action. It tells us that there are people that go through life based on faith alone and no critical thinking that if used only in small amounts would steer you clear of this. I agree that some things in life we (the layman)do take on faith, protons and electrons for example, but Bigfoot evidence should not be one of them. We know the hoaxer is alive and well and it is his job to fool you no matter how outlandish his tale.

Hoaxers I am afraid are not a rarity and pop up you could almost say with some certainty if not weekly, monthly. You can say “bad on them” for doing this, but I think a great deal of the blame lies on our shoulders as many in our hobby have such a high willingness to believe, that they call a duck a duck before seeing if it walks or quacks like one. The hoaxer knows we can become enamored with shadows and tufts of blurry fur in the distance, so not only do we encourage them to hoax, but make it easy for them. There aren’t many other hobbies that allow such shoddy evidence to influence their core beliefs on a subject.

If I was president of this club (sarcasm) I would change the laws that govern our proof meters and once and for all state that if it is a blobsquatch, you might as well call it a shadow of something known and not…. a possible unknown. It’s fun to speculate, but it should never hold any weight lest we give hoaxers the very ammunition they use against us in their pranks.

I know I will never be able to convince all of you, but if we were to begin a trend of higher standards, we could find ourselves with a much more fulfilling interest and begin to discourage some of the would be hoaxers. There is a reason why wildlife magazines do not employ photographers who snap blurry pictures of any other animal and that is because that publication would quickly loose tenability and as a result, subscribers. In some way, that is why we are a minority, because we have some pretty crappy photographers, but still keep them on the payroll so to speak. I say that our hoax to evidence ratio is a direct result of our willingness to pay them any attention with crap that wouldn’t see the light of day in any other medium.

This article does reflect some of my frustrations as of late, but should not be misconstrued as I am giving up on this subject, because I truly do love it and I am fond of many, many in the community. This page was originally given birth by the very same thought process and I only want to help give us all something tangible to sink our teeth into and not something that others will scoff at. If Bigfoot exists, we should not fear better evidence, nor should we tolerate those who sully it at our expense.

You all have heard of the game three card Monty. You should know you have no chance of winning at that game, at least in the long run because you are being cheated by sleight of hand and not because you are a poor gambler. So why do we even walk up to the table when we know we can never win when it comes to evidence of the blurry and shadowy kind? Let’s not play a game that we can never win and call a spade a spade or a shadow just that, and no longer give a hoaxer a fertile field in which to ply his wares. Scrutiny is “OUR” prerogative and if it is not utilized we only invite more obscurity and those who use it against us.

So do you as a Bigfoot fan think we should continue to debate the blurry and shadowy? Do you agree that by having our standards low we invite more hoaxing or do you think it is just being open minded to debate it all? My point is, if you can’t tell if what you are looking at is a rock, a log, a bird or a Bigfoot, then really all that evidence is good for is knowing where to put your camera next time so that you can show us something more conclusive. It is ok to sit on your evidence if you are out in the field until you get something that adds up to something we can really discuss intelligently. I crave that new standard for all of us and believe me, while it will slow down a little bit in our blogosphere, there will still be evidence we can all get behind.
~Gordon
Ready, set…Bigfoot!

Supernatural VS. Paranormal:
A definition and understanding.

To the layman believer and even the skeptic the two words are used interchangeably and seem to have the same connotations for those when debating subjects of the unknown. You also will often see the terms defined and argued erroneously and one taking the role of the other. The word supernatural means outside of nature or beyond nature (nature includes our whole universe) whereas the word paranormal means not or beyond normal (outside of how we think the world usually operates). When using the term Supernatural (if we are to use it correctly) we are referring to beyond our visible universe or to God, divine or other dimensional. These are things that are outside the scope of what we can know of our world through the sciences, physics, relativity, quantum mechanics etc. If they are truly supernatural they can’t be explained unless you give the task to the philosopher or theologian and even then they are only theories that can never be verified by science. The term paranormal means beyond or extraneous of normal or what we have come to expect of objects or ideas and those things behaving differently than we would conclude based on all of our cumulative observations and research. Paranormal has the possibility of being explained at some point in the future (possibly losing its paranormal status) whereas the Supernatural may forever be beyond our reach of understanding and by definition in fact is. In all instances when describing either, it comes down to Epistemology…what can we know (is it knowable and what are our limits of knowing it?) and how do we know it (what skills have we used to understand it and is it justified knowledge?).

A problem of the human condition is that believers and skeptics alike tend to look at that which interests them, and see what they want to see. A confirmation of their worldviews from the passionate beholder and the struggle to maintain the balance that helps them get through their everyday lives. Sometimes we become irrational, whether the subject is the paranormal or politics and it is evident when taking some extreme views from both the Democratic or Republican parties. “While some Democrats will say George Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 some Republicans are certain that Obama is not a citizen of the United States and therefore not qualified for the office.” (* Steve Volk, Fringe.ology 2011) These extreme ideas come from preconceived notions about something that gives those beliefs greater weight than they really should have. I am not debating either view, but will contend that it is worthy of discussion to note that we all lean a certain way, even those in the middle, and that tends to inform and even cloud our judgments concerning our beliefs and attitudes.

The concept of an afterlife falls into the Supernatural as our answers come down to faith and upbringing and not something tangible within our physical grasp. It is something no matter what your postulation, we take on faith. A one-way street so to speak because we all die, but we don’t get the chance to come back and tell our tale to confirm the other side, excluding cases of near death experiences, which by definition are only near death and not the complete journey. On the other side of the same coin, ghosts or apparitions fall into the paranormal, and it may be possible one day with further study to verify that they exist. Proof of ghosts however does not prove the existence of an afterlife, because then the question becomes what is a ghost?

 Once again, discovery and proof forever change the paranormal into the normal, no matter how rare or outrageous. Paranormal has room to evolve whereas the supernatural is static… or it is forced to admit that it never was supernatural. In other words what is “truly” paranormal can one day become normal, but what is “truly” supernatural is always supernatural or it was mislabeled in the first place.
*A quick note: Being that my personal site is a Bigfoot website, Sasquatch does not fit into either the Supernatural or Paranormal category. Bigfoot is either an obscure animal roaming our woods or merely a myth that won’t go away.

A lot to swallow I know , but I feel it is best to at least know the definition of terms we sometimes throw around loosely if we are to gain any upper ground in our conversations towards understanding. It is also wise to the best of your ability to recognize when your dogma influences your reality to the point where it distorts it. That is not always an easy task, but I think a worthy one for both believer and skeptic. As a skeptic myself I don’t always have an easy time with it, but when I am able, I see it brings the whole into focus and gives me a much better foundation on which to supplant my arguments.

 Note: Skeptic does not mean a non believer. Only one who questions before swallowing whole hog.
Speaking of the word argument and even the word debate, I would suggest a much better way for us all to enter into the ring is with “conversation”. Both the word debate and argument as does the word ring suggests that we are taking our separate corners, waiting for the bell, and coming out swinging in hopes of a KO, TKO or a ruling from a judge on who the winner is after so many rounds. We much better serve ourselves by declaring there will be no winner and that we both have the same common goal in mind. That goal is a clearer understanding of the unknown through a more organized and deliberate approach, knowing the definition of the terms we use and using common sense to filter our own leanings that can take us off course. We are after all at the crossroads of faith and reason and in the end we all stand here together, waiting, watching and wondering.

~Gordon
Ready, set…Bigfoot!

Part 2 of What should your criteria be when it comes to purported Bigfoot evidence?

The second type of evidence for Bigfooter’s to consider is the photo/video kind. This type of evidence takes us as the viewer a little closer to the experience and sometimes as an unintentional consequence, smack dab into the bat sh*t crazy mind of those who put it forth as proof.

I know we dabble in a topic that is not mainstream so unintentionally invite in some that sit back smoking a soap bubble pipe while still having flashbacks from the age of Aquarius. But that does not automatically give them the right to spout googly goo nonsense and expect those of us that share this interest to allow them to contaminate the discussion. Those who have the back of the blurry photo do just that. In what other field does an ambiguous, nondescript photo hold any weight? With that in mind, even the best of photos should be looked at with a skeptical leaning eye. Not just because we live in the day of photoshop, but photos can be misleading on many levels.

The primary way a photo gets into the Bigfoot archives, but still leaves us scratching our heads is the partial body or head shot. We see something that looks like it is a hairy creature and think we can make out an eye, a head. an arm or a leg. Unfortunately for us, every single creature that roams the woodland also shares those features. If you already have your mind set that big creatures with big feet are a lurking out there, anything that comes close to your preconceived notion of that will trip your switch. Why is it that most photos only contain a partial body? You can say, well there are trees and such that they live and hide behind. Very well and good I say, but those very obstacles also cast an infinite amount of shadows that when in the right perspective, create an infinite amount of figures, faces and facades. The partial body photo is also a good way for a hoaxer to cover the lack lusterless imparts of a staged shot. If you were to take hundreds of such photos, one is bound to create the effect you are looking for.

The full body shot does us a little better justice, but a great deal of those are also just as blurry. If you find a shot that is not blurry, you have to look at another limitation, which is scale. Photos are notorious for making small things look big and big things look small. I am sure you have even seen photos where it appears that someone is holding the moon in their hands or holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Illusions abound in everyday life and I have always especially liked sidewalk drawings where it looks from a certain angle like you may just tumble into a chasm of some sort if you don’t walk around it. The point is our eyes can be fooled.

Video proof is perhaps our best proof, yet it is full of limitations too. If you are lucky, in a video you have an opportunity to see body movement and if you are even luckier, context of scale and perhaps some finer details. Often however you are stuck with grainy and bouncy footage, where you get a one second glimpse of something that just could be……mmmmm Bigfoot maybe? I believe this is deliberate in some cases and just the nature of traversing the terrain and getting that award winning shot in others. Thankfully today, we do have people like MK Davis that have taken it upon themselves to stabilize, zoom in and slow down some videos so we can get a better understanding of what we may be seeing. I applaud those people, for without them, not only would we be left sea sick, but completely unimpressed with a tremendous amount of footage.

I personally have a couple of gold rule standards that I apply to videos, before giving them a thumbs up or a thumbs down. The first is, what is the backstory and why are you, the video taker, where you are and with a camera rolling? Some videos are dead giveaways just because there seems to be no logical reason why you are filming in the first place. In other words everything appears to be staged just for this one in a million, phenomenal footage. 

The second thing I look for is reaction of the party or parties when the creature comes to their attention. First thing you would expect would be an evident surge of fear, shock and adrenaline. Their voices will get higher in pitch, they will say things like “Holy sh*t, what, the heck is that thing” and not things like “look a Bigfoot”. You get my point anyway. 

The third thing I look for is the length of the clip. If you have your video camera trained on a Sasquatch, you would think you would get more than 17.5 seconds of footage or in many cases a whole lot less. Got to love the 3 second video clip we are expected to fawn over. 

One of the reasons I was never impressed by Rick Dyers tent video is its shortness for such a close up video. Unfortunately most videos fall into that length of time and should be a red flag. I do understand editing for the best parts, but once again this goes back to the importance of people’s reactions before, during and after an encounter. You are editing out the best parts if you remove an honest reaction. 

The final aspect of a video that I will discuss today concerning validity is, what do you actually get to see in the video? Even if in the case of a possible mistaken identification, we should be able to clearly make out that this is a living animal, be it human, bear or otherwise and not a tree stump. The best videos however leave no doubt, such as Freeman and the PG films, that you are looking at either a well made costume or a Bigfoot indeed.

A little on CGI and the well made costume. With today’s technology CGI is always a possibility, however even in the highest budget movies, we seem to be able to tell something is not quite right, but too high a quality should be a clue as well. We don’t often traverse the woods with a many thousand dollar camera, so something that looks too good probably is too good if done by a supposed amateur. Seems ironic requesting high quality proof, yet potentially dismissing it at the same time.

You just have to have a keen eye for what does not look natural and put all of the pieces together. They can get you every time with a well made U.F.O video.

Lastly if you have ever watched the Sci-Fi show face off, you know what talented people are capable of concerning makeup and costumes. We as a group, fascinated with the Bigfoot have a tough job ahead of us in any event. I know this article sounds like I can dismiss just about everything out there, but that would not be true. I have seen some videos that fail on three quarters of what I like to see and I still think there is a possibility we may be viewing a Bigfoot. The take away though, should be, (1)we as humans are capable of seeing things that are not there especially when we want to believe it. (2) We need to be able to put ourselves in the shoes of the videographer and see if the reaction and emotion fits the situation and finally (3) we need to consider all aspects of the video, not just what we see, but how we are seeing it (is it staged) and even seemingly little things like the length of the video. 

I will discuss in more depth (at another time), videos I really like and I am always interested in what you the reader may have discovered that is new or I may have overlooked.

~Gordon
Ready, set…..Bigfoot!

How would you react if you saw what you truly believed might be a Bigfoot?

By that I mean what do you think would be your “physical” response? Would you all of a sudden feel a rush of blood going to your head and become one giant goose pimple? If you have ever experienced something profound to you, you know what I am talking about. Sometimes movies and songs do this to us. Sometimes it can be... good, bad, scary or odd news that comes at us out of the blue. It is not a sensation that we feel very often, but I imagine most of us know exactly what I am talking about.

Did you know last night Tom Brokaw came on the NBC nightly news and reported aliens had landed a large space ship on the White House lawn and are now in negotiations with the President of the United States? Did you feel that? I did, just writing it, and believe me, I recognize the feeling even when using my imagination to conjure up an alarming scenario that is not true. Now imagine yourself alone in the woods when you see what you think is an honest to goodness Sasquatch coming into view.

It has been claimed by some that Sasquatch has the power to hypnotize or daze those who run across it. If that is true, I believe that it could be more an internal process inside of us, than it is likely that IT is projecting something our way. I know for a fact I would have an awe inspired head rush if I saw one, Sasquatch telekinesis or not.

Goose bumps are a physiological response to stimuli that has caught us unsuspecting, and is a relic from our primitive ancestors as the release of a stress hormone called adrenaline. This feeling can be triggered by many things, but are almost always brought about by an emotional and unexpected event. Some are so intense that they make us light headed and cause us to wriggle uncontrollably (send shivers down your spine) and in extremes and depending on your constitution, loss of consciousness i.e. fainting. I personally have had some that have lasted several minutes and could compare them to an out of body experience.

Knowing this about ourselves can be a valuable tool when scrutinizing Bigfoot videos because the reaction of the filmer and others in the party should be at least one component to your assumptions of its validity. This is not to say a believable reaction is proof (or visa-versa), because a person who is convinced, but wrong about what they have seen, can have that same response. It is in fact though a reaction I believe 99.9 percent of us would have especially if you were convinced you were looking at an honest to goodness Squatch. I personally have hit the stop button and moved on to the next video, just because the response was obviously contrived and not how most of us would react if we were in their shoes.

I did want to talk about what it might be if there was something to a hypnosis inducing animal.

If we were to assume the potentiality of such a power from a Sasquatch I personally would never attribute that to some other worldly influence, but we might easily find a more terrestrial explanation if we think about it. Take for example bats. You have heard the term blind as a bat (which is not completely true). They use echolocation to find their small prey and in the dark no less. This they do by emitting a high pitch sound which bounces off the insects and returns to the flying mammal. Not a knockout blow, but we have heard of sonar being used by submarines causing disorientation, injury and some say the killing of aquatic animals. Of course we are talking about sonar at a magnitude that no animal can compare to, but it is a natural explanation if we are to speculate on such “powers” coming from any beast. The other thing though we should consider when talking about magnitude is the medium that the sound wave is passing through. Water is much denser then air and so the ability to amp up the frequency, much easier.

I was inspired to write this article, because we read and hear fairly frequently that people notice an odd sensation when encountering what they believe is a Bigfoot. I am just not sure how odd that really is when you think about what you believe you are seeing, but of course I have never crossed paths with something I thought was a Sasquatch. In a recent interview (That I enjoyed from Bigfoot weekly), I heard the interviewee refer to being “zapped” when he made out this creature with his rifle scope. I do believe, you would have to be quite acclimated to the idea that Bigfoot exists and have had several previous encounters yourself, for you NOT to experience an intense sensation during an event like this. It is part of the fight or flight response when frightened or disturbed and those feelings we cannot deny being a part of our "own" as well as other animal’s makeup (picture your cat or dog with its hair on end in a thunder storm).

In this article, I wanted to put forth possible explanations for those who have had that experience without denying that they are actually having them. In reading this you should gather that I in fact believe it would be next to impossible for them not to. I am of the opinion none the less, that there will always be a real world explanation for real world phenomena even if it is one we have not thought of yet and that is where I regard as the first place we should always go when we have conversations on the unknown.
What do you folks think? Have you ever had goose bumps so intense that you had to sit down or walk it off?

Imagine hiking in the mountains and turning a corner and coming across a large bear only feet away.

Wait a minute… is that a bear? That is no bear.

That’s a large man….a hunter perhaps...

completely covered in …....................hair?
Wait a minute…is that a man? That is no man.

Oh shirt sleeves!…..that is a…is that a...a Bigfoot?

You can post comments after your goose bumps go away.

~Gordon

 Ready, set…Bigfoot!

  

Les Stroud, More Credibility

For years I have enjoyed Les Stroud and his Survivor Man series. I live in a wooded area and love the Rocky Mountains which are literally my back yard, so any show that takes us into the boscage and teaches us how to use what is there to survive and then make it out again, has always had a place close to my heart.

Les is the only one I know of who actually does ...all of his own camera work and it is no easy task considering what he takes on. He goes solo, and with the immensely painstaking process of setting up his multiple cameras, hiking away from them sometimes thousands of yards over steep terrain to record his progression, then, once satisfied backtracking just as perilously to pick up his cameras and do it all over again. He shows more integrity and commitment to his show and skills than any other survivor type program I have seen. Quite frankly I personally would find it a real drag to make progress on a torturous trail that could take my life and then be forced to go back, grab my gear so I can set up for the next leg. Thankfully he does it all for us and with a smile.

You might wonder why he does this (solo) and the answer is, he is showing us true survivor skills with the same resources we would have if lost in the woods. He does not have the luxury of having a camera man, who would have rations and a long distance communicator as well as just a helping hand in any emergency… and that is the whole point of the show. He in fact is taking real risks with his own life and I have sometimes feared that one day we will read in the papers that he never made it back from filming one of his episodes. He is for real and he is really putting himself out there.

It is with my great pleasure that we have a two part special on the Science Channel that has been given the go ahead that takes on two of my favorite subjects. Surviving in the wilderness…and Bigfoot. The episodes titled Survivorman: Stalking Sasquatch, will take us the viewer, on a precarious journey with Les as he goes in search of the wild man of the woods with plenty of high quality cameras in tow.

We can expect to see the same kind of dangerous terrain that he usually undertakes, but instead of focusing on getting out, he will be focusing on going big. As in Bigfoot. A quote from the Hollywood reporter: “Stroud goes deep into the territory of the infamous Bigfoot to survive with few supplies and even fewer rations, "smack dab in the middle of the monster’s hotspots." He also will delve into the truth behind the legend as he investigates the whereabouts of this infamous creature."

The fellow known lovingly as Survivor Man has on at least two instances given his take on the legend of Bigfoot and has had relayed some personal experiences that indicate that he believes there may be some truth to this creature. Here is a man that knows what it is like being as remote as possible on the outskirts of where humanity dare not go and has impeccable knowledge of the flora and fauna. If anyone has a chance of having an eyewitness encounter with Sasquatch and then being credible in his report, it is Les and quite literally in his minimalism approach, Les is more.

For me it is a win-win situation as I love his show anyway, but with him keeping an ever keen eye out and camera for something that will bring us closer to an age old question, I find that this special will be extra special… for anyone with an interest in Sasquatch.
Show is set to premier the first quarter of 2014
~Gordon
Ready, set…Bigfoot!

Seeahtik and forget it?

It is likely that the first conception of Bigfoot in North America came from the natives here way before white man ever set foot on this continent. It is at least certain that there were legends and stories of a large hairy man like creature prior to its settlement. Most all of the Native American tribes of the Northwest believed this creature was as real as the bears ...and eagles that roamed and flew over their lands, but their opinions were mixed as to its demeanor. Within the Native Americans culture, unique abilities and strengths of other species were looked upon as an ideal that were often considered next to perfection and sometimes referred to animal archetypes as elder brothers or teachers of man. Those animals that most closely resembled man were given the same respect as they gave their own brothers and were one of the reasons the Northwestern tribes did not eat bear meat.

Sasquatch was one such creature that was held with reverence and was thought to have both an “animal-style consciousness and human-style consciousness”. Here is a quote from a Gayle Highpine, a Kootenai Indian who wrote a paper in 1992 concerning her interpretations of Bigfoot in her culture. "But, special being as he is, I have never heard anyone from a Northwestern tribe suggest that Bigfoot is anything other than a physical being, living in the same physical dimensions as humans and other animals. He eats, he sleeps, he poops, he cares for his family members. However, among many Indians elsewhere in North America... as widely separated as the Hopi, the Sioux, the Iroquois, and the Northern Athabascan -- Bigfoot is seen more as a sort of supernatural or spirit being, whose appearance to humans is always meant to convey some kind of message."

Many tribes considered the big man as an omen of bad things and others a creature that would bless them if encountered. Considering there were close to 4,000 different American tribes over the course of history with different and varying beliefs, I am only going to focus on the Clallum Indians and their special brand of Sasquatch, the Seeahtik otherwise referred to as the Mountain Devils.

The first documented account of the Seeahtiks was in 1924 in the Pacific Northwest where a group of prospectors were attacked by giant hairy rock throwers that destroyed their cabins and scared them off. However the Clallum Indians have a much longer history and oral tradition, which they kept to themselves for several reasons. One was out of embarrassment of their history with them, the other out of fear of not being believed and not wanting to be labeled a liar. The Clallum Indians in fact considered the Seeahtik another Indian tribe (“Giant Indian”), one that had been skipped over in evolutionary progress and were more animal than man. They grew to 8 feet tall and were fully covered by hair “just like the bear”. They were mischievous and practical jokers that would take what they wanted and would not tolerate retaliation. In fact the Clallums after killing one for stealing one of their women, believed that the Seeahtiks had a rule where they would kill twelve of them for every one of their own lost. They were not to be trifled with. Contradicting Gayle Highpine 69 years later that the Northwestern tribes did not consider Sasquatch supernatural, in the 1924 story, Jorg Totsgi, a Clallam Tribesman stated, that they were known to kill prey with hypnotism and could speak the bear and bird language and were ventriloquists that were able to throw their voices. It may be that there is a better understanding today of such things for the differing interpretation years later, as we all today have answers to many things that once were mysteries delegated to the supernatural. Jorg Totsgi also said he had thought they had gone extinct years ago, but the description by the miners of ape like men and their mode of attack could only be the “Giant Indians” known as the Seeahtiks.

So it seems Native Americans are as diverse in their beliefs of Sasquatch as many of us. I personally like and adhere to Gayle Highpine’s concept of Bigfoot as an animal living in the same physical dimensions as humans, that eats, sleeps, poops and cares for its family, but I can appreciate the poetic descriptions of something that is beyond our understanding. It is a core proponent of all oral traditions to add flair with flamboyant descriptions and metaphors so that the story will be remembered and passed down for generations.

The important thing to consider is this is just one of many tribes and their experiences with the big man. There are many interpretations as to what Sasquatch is and represents and we see that in our own journey. There have been centuries now of tales and conjecture on what many only claim is a myth, but there may be a need that Bigfoot fills in us that the Native American knew only all too well, and is why its stories are still being told as clearly as they were a hundred years ago. I of course barely touched in this article the Seeahtiks and will leave further exploration up to you.
I found the rock throwing that is something we hear a lot today interesting, and it could be that the miners were in fact attacked by people that were in competition for that claim. However, that Jorg Totsgi came forward with his retelling of the Clallums experiences, makes it fascinating and compelling that there may have been a creature still around in 1924 from the Seeahtik tribe, known today as Bigfoot.

~Gordon

 Ready, set…Bigfoot!

Could dog be Bigfoot's best friend too?

We humans have a long history with our canine companions that stretch many thousands of years. There is no way to know who extended the first paw, man or beast, but it seems the relationship was destined to be as natural as rain from clouds. Both initially formed this bond for selfish reasons, which slowly grew into a friendship that would have neither partner having it any other way. For the wolf, we were a low energy alternative source for finding food as scavengers looking for an easy meal and awareness that we hunted the same prey. They would lurk near our camps in prehistoric times and make off with scraps of food that we may have discarded or left out carelessly… but we hominids soon saw the benefit of having an animal like this in the shadows, even at the price of what may have first seemed an annoyance. They alerted us to the always present dangers of something unwanted coming too close with their much better sense of smell and hearing and therein lies the beginning of a symbiotic courtship, that would last the test of time.

Hound and man formed a partnership, where we scratched its belly and it scratched ours and we soon incorporated, four feet with tail, into our hunting routines, our families, and even our hearts. Much more than an early warning system, the dog was more than happy to earn its keep and help with the burden of keeping our stomachs full and it would not take long after that before we would learn to breed them for the qualities that we felt the tail wagger was better suited for than us.

So the question I have is, is it possible that Bigfoot too could have formed a similar comraderie with wolves or even coyotes…If not as a pet, maybe an ally? We have seen odd and unlikely friendships in nature many times, especially with the abandoned young and it is an intriguing thought, to say the very least, that Bigfoot, if real, could be doing the same.

It wasn’t until this point in writing this article that I actually decided to do some research and amazingly I found that this is not the first time this question has been pondered. In fact I just read where baboons have been documented kidnapping feral dogs and keeping them as pets in some parts of Africa, so it seems my thought was not as farfetched as I was thinking it may be when I set out to write this post. The dogs are believed to be considered an extension of the baboon’s own family just as we think of our own dogs. They are known to groom and care for them which is something they only do with accepted members of their own group and I find it fascinating the idea of another species having the same fondness that we do for dogs.
I was lucky enough to find a video (link below) of this (baboon kidnapping dogs), and it is must see if you can get through the first few minutes when the kidnapping takes place. I found the story and clip to be very profound, since I decided to write this without any prior knowledge that it was anything more than me just thinking out loud.

I almost think that if there truly is a large, intelligent bi-pedal animal roaming our woods that is much like us, than there is a good chance this has happened and could even be common place. I have never heard of dog prints alongside suspected Sasquatch ones, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t been reported or the connection overlooked. The dogs may be yet another reason why Sasquatch may be so elusive and for the very reasons we first appreciated them ourselves.
It’s kind of nice in a way to think that Bigfoot may have a friend and a similar bond with an animal that we hold dear to ourselves and I for one am willing to share. Just not my dog though. He can get his own.

~Gordon~
 Ready, set…Bigfoot!

Do we lose Bigfoot by finding Sasquatch?

What would really happen if we prove Bigfoot is real and could that be a bad thing? That’s not a question most of us ask ourselves in this hobby. We are after all, gung ho on finding every bit of proof we can and sometimes waste more time looking for it than watching cat videos…sometimes.

If we really think about it, there is as much to lose as there... is to gain if we do prove its existence. Bigfoot represents something to most of us that goes beyond just the idea of an unknown species of man-like creature roaming the thicket. Because he resides for now, mostly in our thoughts, we can claim him as our very own. We individually have an image of what he looks like, how he traverses the forests, what he eats, and even how he thinks. We are allowed to do this with impunity because he is “our” Bigfoot and we have, not so far at least, had to share him with the rest of the world in a manner of speaking. If he is ever discovered by science and deemed just another animal on our planet, we risk losing a part of that romance and that special connection that we hold dear with our big footed pal. We all have had the experience, especially when young of being captivated by things that we thought were mysterious, which over time lost that magic once we grew to understand them. We have outgrown fears that once were very real to us, as today we know better than to believe that there are monsters lurking under the bed or in our closet. Mystery is what keeps some things alive and truly fascinating. We love our cryptid and maybe it would just be better if he stays that way, not only for us, but for him as well.

There is the real fear of what would happen to the individual Sasquatch if it were captured. Do we really trust that he would be left alone and not caged, poked and prodded? That’s how we treat every other animal on this planet. Name one that you can’t imagine being in a zoo? Now I know we think that is the last thing that would happen to a creature like Bigfoot, but we can’t always be trusted to do the right thing and I think it would come down to just how intelligent this creature is. The more human like the better chance it has, but if it shows traits that keep him thought of as just another beast, he will most likely find himself housed right next to the great apes at your local zoo. While I know every one of us would line up to buy tickets to see that, we would be in essence betraying something that at least us in the Bigfoot community hold as sacred.

Is it worth it, or do we regret our choice after there is no turning back? I am torn really and it wasn’t until yesterday while writing another post (Spike TV’s 10 Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty) that this realization even occurred to me. We risk losing Bigfoot by finding him.

In some ways a dead Squatch (found body, not shot) would be better than a living one, because at least we know we are not going to make it suffer by caging and ultimately torturing it. One could never justify keeping something like a bona-fide Sasquatch locked up in an enclosure or some observation pit for the rest of its natural life. We also keep 99 percent of the mystery intact with just a body and then we and it move on to the way things were. Is that selfish of me? I don’t know the answer to these questions really, and like I said it is not something most of us have really pondered to the extent that we see it to its final conclusion, so it makes a good topic for discussion which I hope you all take part in. There are pros and cons to this that I see clearly, but no easy answer. So let me know what you think in the comments below?

Ready, set…Bigfoot!