Do they exist? I hear all the time, “If they exist, why isn’t there any evidence?” Well, what kind of evidence? Witnesses? Thousands of people who have seen them? Stories dating back to the indigenous peoples of this continent. The fact is, that Native American Tribes all over the continent have names for this creature tells us much. It was seen and interacted with, and the names often tell of the perceptions of the tribes toward this creature. Then, there are stories from trappers and miners and settlers in this country. Even a president.
Just to show a few of the names:
Zuni Indians-Atahsaia, “The Canibal Demon.”
Dakota (East)/Sioux Indian, Chiha tanka, “Big Elder Brother.”
Seminole Indian, Esti Capcaki, “Tall Man.”
Cherokee Indian, Kecleh-Kudleh, “Hairy Savage.”
Yakama/Klickitat Indian, Qui yihahs, “The Five Brothers.”
Iroquois/Seneca Indian, Ge no sqwa, “Stone Giants.”
Note that these names come from the southeast, the Mid-Atlantic region, the plains, the Northwest.
The response? Academics scientists and skeptics, who simply dismiss the accounts. Somehow they believe that, even though they may have never set foot outside a city, that they know more about the natural world that the ones who live in the midst of it.
What other evidence?
Verbal reports: Besides the above-mentioned reports, there are literally thousands upon thousands of reports of modern people who have seen something. Many come from long before Sasquatch became so iconic, from a time when people had no idea what they were seeing. There are Bigfoot websites all over the internet. Each has its own section with reports. The BFRO website has probably the biggest and best-organized section of reports.
One of my favorites is one about a woman who is camping in southern Colorado. She comes out of her tent and is face to face, twelve feet away from a female and her youngster. They stare at each other and then the creature lopes away. Bears don’t lope. And, just to counter the next comment, she had worked at a bear rescue/rehab facility and knew bears. While I personally don’t know her, a number of my friends do. She is no wacko.
The response? What were they smoking? Were they drinking? Invariably, these are the most intelligent comments that critiques can muster.
Photographic and video: There are hundreds and hundreds of photos and videos. Now I am hard to impress and will not accept any blobsquatch picture or anything where someone has to say, “Look, see, there are the eyes, there is a nose.” No, I don’t buy that. But, even after weeding those out, there are at least a hundred interesting videos. And there are thousands of photos.
The response? It’s fake. It’s a bear. It’s shadows. It’s pareidolia. (seeing faces in clouds). It’s a bear. A guy in a monkey suit. That seems to be the most common, knee jerk reaction.
Audio evidence: There are numerous recordings of vocalizations, most notably the Ron Moorehead recordings. These recordings have been studied by linguists from the University of Wyoming. The conclusion was that it is a language with syntax. The response? Pretty much silence or just calling it babble.
Physical evidence: Hundreds of plaster casts exist of footprints and handprints taken from all over the world, which are remarkable in their similarities with each other. Hair samples and scat samples also exist. These have been tested for DNA numerous times but truthfully, I am not prepared to discuss this line of evidence. This is way out of my realm of expertise. The response? It’s just a bear paw. I don’t know what it is, but it isn’t a Bigfoot because Bigfoot doesn’t exist.
So what it boils down to is that Bigfoot doesn’t exist because there is no evidence because you discount all the evidence. Perhaps what people are really saying is, “Prove it.” But, the evidence is not proof. But it leads to the truth. But let me lay a bit of wisdom down: Cynicism is not wisdom nor is it a sign of intelligence. Skepticism, however, is crucial. Let’s look at the famous Patterson Gimlin film. It’s a microcosm of the entire issue. In Geology there is a concept called a “type section.” It is where a rock formation is first formally studied and anytime a geologist has a question as to whether a particular outcrop is, say, the Fountain Formation, the geologist will compare it to the formal type section in Fountain Colorado.
The PG film is the type section for Bigfoot study. Let’s look deeper as to why. These two men, Bob Gimlin, and Roger Patterson went out looking for Bigfoot. Massive perseverance paid off and after a month of riding, they came across one. And they were prepared. More or less as they almost did not get the film. Even though they were looking for the creature, when reality gobsmacked them, they almost did not get it. Roger had trouble getting the camera from the saddle bag. He was running, looking for a better vantage point. He fell in the creek, all while Bob stood by with a rifle at the ready. And, amazingly, to this day, there has not been a film as clear and informative.
It is important to remember that the images from that film have become iconic. They are engraved in our culture. But these two men did not even know what they were looking for, only that they would know it when they saw it. What is remarkable is that so many of the videos taken since have shown a remarkable resemblance to the creature on the film.
Before we go any further, we need to talk about the claim that the film is debunked, that someone claimed to have been in on the hoax. It’s important to note the fact that even though someone claims to have been in on it does not make it so. And yet, people tend to hang on to those ideas and dismiss any evidence to the contrary. There is a picture out there that supposedly shows the suit that Roger Patterson had made, indicating that he was prepared to hoax a sighting. That Roger was a bit of a sketchy character has never been questioned. He may have even been prepared to perpetrate a hoax. But Patterson and Gimlin actually did find what they were looking for and ultimately it was not necessary! Patterson may well have been sketchy but even sketchy folks can have great moments. Note that the suit, in the picture in question, is BROWN. Look at the film. The creature is decidedly and unequivocally BLACK! Or to put it another way, how could they have had this suit made when they did not know what it looked like?
Let’s digress for a moment. How many folks have seen a gorilla on a street corner, often twirling a sign to advertise a sandwich shop or a car wash? Has anyone, ever once said, “Oh my God! It’s a gorilla on the loose! Call the police! Or has anyone gone to the primate house at the zoo and lamented all those people in monkey suits? If you have, please contact me. If you haven’t, I ask you, “Why?” The answer is because the proportions are all wrong. Arms too long or too short. Legs are wrong. The posture is wrong. In short, you never did those things because A MAN IN A MONKEY SUIT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A MONKEY! Or, has anyone ever donned a monkey suit and tried running through the woods? Running gracefully in big old fake feet with a big helmet that restricts your vision is not easy so I would imagine. I have never actually tried it. Again, if you have, let us know. So the most common reply, “A guy in a monkey suit,” just really does not make sense. Not even a little bit.
Now let’s go back to the PG film and the events surrounding it. Within days of the sighting, there were numerous pictures made of the footprints and at least ten plaster casts made of the footprints. These prints told an amazing story, especially connected with the footage. They showed a creature with a foot that was very different from a human. A person would not be able to create a print like it. It flexed in the middle and not at the toe. It did not have an arch. It had what is called a “compliant gait,” where the feet strike the ground in a line, not side by side.
Now, ranchers are smart people. You have to be to do the work that they do. But could these two have been able to create a whole new kind of foot design and create models to fake the contrived prints? That stretches credibility. Would they have thought to attach breasts to the monkey suit? Maybe, but somehow, I don’t think so.
So, back to the fakery issue. If it was faked, did the hoaxer have a 42-inch stride? And later a 68 to 72-inch stride when investigators tracked it into the woods where it appeared to break into a run. Did the hoaxer have a 14 in barefoot print? Did the hoaxer weigh roughly 700 pounds? That is what it took to make a similar indentation in the sand bar.
Using this film as our type section we compare it to all other videos (and footprints and handprints and other evidence) that come to light. The resemblance between them, from California to Kentucky to China is remarkable. It is, in fact, astounding.
http://www.nativevillage.org. The list of names above.
Other interesting name websites:
Stabilized Patterson Gimlin Film:
Watch other videos by M.K. Davis
http://www.cryptozoonews.com/morris-obit/ See the pictures especially.