Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence – An Anthropologist Speaks Out
Book review by Linda Martin – © 2010
Reading group homepage for this book: Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence
Re: Chapter One of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence – An Anthropologist Speaks Out
Dr. Grover S. Krantz was fascinated by the possibility of Bigfoot’s existence. His enthusiasm shines through in the pages of his seminal scientific examination of the phenomena: Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence – An Anthropologist Speaks Out. The introduction and chapter one are the same thing – there is no separate introduction.
In Chapter One – Introduction, Dr. Krantz explains how he came to be invested in Bigfoot research. He lists the books he read and tells what he thought of them and what he learned from them. He introduces a few prominent Bigfoot researchers of his era; he started his Bigfoot research in the mid-sixties. Next he examines, briefly, various types of proof he’ll discuss at length later in the pages of his book.
Not content with telling why people believe in Bigfoot, Dr. Krantz also writes about alternative explanations for Bigfoot sighting reports and Bigfoot related phenomena, including bear misidentifications, fabrications, misinterpreted chance irregularities, and other types of human error. He states:
Dr. Krantz lists a series of events needed to prove to scientists that an animal is real. The process includes sighting reports, skeletal remains, a complete body, a live capture, and then studies in its natural habitat. We’re a long way from proving anything about Bigfoot! We’re still in stage one of the process – gathering sighting reports.
The next section explains why we are unlikely to ever find Bigfoot bones. Dr. Krantz concluded the chapter by discussing strong opinions, unusual historic Bigfoot sighting and encounter cases, his personal involvement in Bigfoot research, and the focus of his book, which is professional and scientific in nature.
Next chapter: Big Footprints
March 11, 2010
Bigfoot: to Research or Not to Research?
Bigfoot Research: Good or Bad?
There’s been a bit of controversy recently about Autumn William’s Professional Suicide blog posting in which she videoed herself saying she met a person who is friends with a Bigfoot. Her new informant, she says, “doesn’t like Bigfoot researchers.” She’s convinced his story is so compelling she’s writing a book about it, without any of what people normally consider evidence or proof. So, she now says, “I am not a Bigfoot researcher – I’m an eyewitness advocate.”
In saying all this she managed to upset a few Bigfoot research bloggers and people on Bigfoot message boards. As for me, I sensed that she’s had a shift in self-perception and no longer feels comfortable with the former role we all perceived her in, as a Bigfoot research blogger and website owner. She has a great website with a large database of sightings. What about this is not really research?
Despite what she said, I don’t think it should now become unpopular to be called a Bigfoot researcher, or to call oneself that. Call yourselves whatever you like… and if your interest is in learning more about Bigfoot then you’re a Bigfoot researcher no matter what you intend to call yourself. If you put “Bigfoot sightings” into a search box and found this site, you’re researching Bigfoot, right? So to eliminate the term makes no real sense to me.
I’m sorry to hear that Autumn’s new friend doesn’t like Bigfoot researchers. Perhaps, more specifically this person could say what exactly isn’t liked. Is it the action of going into the woods with loud Bigfoot scream recordings, making tree knocking sounds, and all the other things some Bigfoot researchers consider standard? Is it the attempt to learn anything about Bigfoot at all that is not being liked?
It is a fact that as long as there’s a mystery there will be people intrigued and wanting to resolve it. However they go about that, it is hopeful they’ll do so with an intention not to harm any other living creature. Those that seek to capture, imprison, or kill a Sasquatch for fame or financial gain are not approaching the issue with pure hearts. Purity of heart is most likely the only thing that will result in relationship with a Bigfoot. Rather than seek Bigfoot with motion sensors, trail cams, and night vision cameras, perhaps it would be best to search within, to purify our hearts and clarify our thoughts, so that when we’re faced with the reality of a Sasquatch we’re ready to befriend and not to exploit.
A lot of what Autumn said in her video, I can agree with. I don’t have a need to drop the word ‘researcher,’ however. The specific term for the people who are difficult to tolerate is Bigfoot exploiters… those who would harm a Sasquatch and interfere with that person’s life, for their own self-aggrandizement (or pocketbook) — those are the ones who should be ‘not liked’ … not researchers. Research is a human occupation. We think, we question, we study. Being human is not something to be ashamed of.
For more information and links, see Steven Streufert’s comments re: A Bold Statement Out of Oregon.
September 5, 2009
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter One: “Historical Bigfoot”
Review by Linda Martin – @2009
Reading group homepage for this book: Tribal Bigfoot
Re: Chapter One of Tribal Bigfoot, “Historical Bigfoot.”
I love historic accounts of Bigfoot encounters found in newspapers of the 1800’s in the USA. I wonder how many of these old news articles are still undiscovered. David Paulides came up with some fascinating articles for the first chapter of Tribal Bigfoot — possibly from the Ray Crowe archive he purchased.
After reading the entire chapter, the historic articles that remain in my memory are those with detailed descriptions of a possible Bigfoot-like creature. Back then they were called “wild men.” They are described as having skin resembling a horses’s — not what I’d expect at all — but it fits: hair-covered hide, hands similar to bear paws.
What’s very cool about these news articles is that there are several accounts of a captured Bigfoot. One article is from 1833 in Kentucky (pages 48 and 49), and another from 1839 in Ohio (pages 44 through 46). Both these provide detailed descriptions of the appearance and behavior of the “wild man” that we would probably call Sasquatch or Bigfoot today. Another account of a captured wild man was published in 1908 in Wisconsin about a Volva, North Dakota incident (page 46).
If they were actually captured back then, it makes me wonder why we have such a difficult time doing the same now. Could it be that we (as a species) have learned incompetence during the last 170 years? Could television and radio waves and cell phone EMFs have affected us … and made us lazy? Yes, times have changed.. so are we capable of duplicating the captures of the past? Or, were these accounts of hairy wild man captures simply facetious? (I think not.) Another wild theory of mine is that these captured wild men were able to put the word out to others of their species through psychic means, to warn them that if they had contact with humans they could end up captured. Are Bigfoot creatures more cautious now because of what has happened in the past?
Captivity seemed to drain the fight out of these wild men. The Ohio article stated, “He is now quite tame and quiet and is only confined by a stout chain attached to his legs.” I find it hard to believe that a stout chain could stop a Bigfoot from escape. A few years back I saw a thick and hefty chain which had held two goats, that had been broken so that something (a possible Bigfoot) could take the goats for food. (The remains were found nearby on a hill in a wooded area.) Perhaps the Ohio wild man lost his strength because of a changed diet, or just a lack of will to escape.
The Kentucky account involved a possible Bigfoot on a train. He was being taken to New York to hopefully be sold to PT Barnum’s circus. This article states, “When Conductor Harry Smith took out his glistening nickel plated punch to cancel the tickets the wild man watched the punch intently until he heard it snap. Then he got down in the corner of the seat fairly shivering with fear, and set up a low howl…”
Could it be that the Ohio and Kentucky captured wild men were one and the same? Not if you believe the stories from the newspapers. The Ohio wild man was captured near the Mississippi River and the wild man on the train in Kentucky was said to have lived in North Carolina. He was also said to have been a sharp shooter and murderer. The part about being a sharp shooter doesn’t sound realistic so that brings into question the credibility of the men who possessed the wild man. Even so, the Kentucky article pre-dates the Ohio article by six years so it is unlikely to have been the same creature.
Another old news article that changed how I think about Bigfoot is the “What Is It” article published June 25, 1891 in Woodland, California, found in Tribal Bigfoot on pages 33 and 34. It tells of Mr. Herman Gilbert who was exploring Capay Valley, near Rumsey. David Paulides identified Rumsey as being a small town near Clear Lake in Northern California. The article tells that Mr. Gilbert found and followed footprints to a ravine where he witnessed an agitated Bigfoot-like creature “covered in gore” near a pile of rotting animal remains that stank severely. It made me wonder if members of the Bigfoot species are in the habit of covering themselves with gore to produce a terrible stench. It could be a way of self-protection from forest animals, or a way to keep human beings at bay.
Any comments on this chapter are welcome.
…
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter One: “Historical Bigfoot”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Two: “The Bigfoot Map Project”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Three: “Associations”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Four: “Extreme Sighting Locations”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Five: “Santa Cruz County”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Six: “Amador County”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Seven: “Trinity County”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Eight: “Siskiyou County”
Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Nine: “Del Norte County”
…
September 2, 2009
How to Find Bigfoot
I’ve seen a lot of people come and go here in the Klamath River Valley — Bigfoot researchers looking for Northern California Bigfoot action. It saddens me that they can stay only a few hours or days — then must return to their city jobs in other parts of the country.
Yes, the Bigfoot Scenic Byway is prime Bigfoot territory and home to the Patterson-Gimlin film site, but let’s not forget that Bigfoot can be found in almost every state.
Do you want to find Bigfoot?
If you live near a forested area, consider spending more time there on a regular, hopefully daily basis. Check Bigfoot sighting databases online to see where Bigfoot has been seen in your state. Choose a nearby sighting location and make it your home away from home. The regularity of your being there will be a possible draw for a curious Sasquatch.
Bigfoot Encounters State-by-State Sightings List
Bigfoot Information Society Bigfoot Sighting Database
Oregon Bigfoot National Sightings Database
BFRO Geographic Database of Bigfoot/Sasquatch Sightings and Reports
What to do while you’re there
Offer music and food. Look for footprints and broken tree branches. Do some howling and wood knocking and rock pounding. Announce your presence as well as you can, then show yourself as a harmless, nature-loving companion that Bigfoot might consider visiting. If you play acoustic guitar or flute, take your musical instrument with you. Maybe Bigfoot will be curious to see where the beautiful sounds are coming from. A dulcimer, recorder, or djembe would work well too.
I find that a few hours alone in the woods can be a profoundly peaceful experience. I usually take my journal to write in and a comfortable chair to sit in when I’m not hiking around, looking at things. I don’t take food — at least, not for myself — because I’m not there to attract bears. Many researchers leave food in the forest hoping Bigfoot will discover and appreciate it. You might like to read Ray Crowe’s article on baiting. Be aware that some counties have ordinances against feeding wildlife. Stay on the safe side of the law.
Don’t forget, Bigfoot are nocturnal. If possible, spend the night in your research location every now and then. Take a night vision scope if you have one.
Psychological considerations
I believe that motivation is a big factor in whether or not you’ll attract a Bigfoot to your research area. If your motivation is to capture or kill, they may sense that and stay away. I know many researchers have the desire to prove that Bigfoot exists, so they think only a body (dead or alive) can do that. Purify your motivations and you may have a better chance of connecting with a Sasquatch. Many people believe that Bigfoot has eluded captivity for so long because they are wise and possibly quite psychic.
Your intention to have contact with a Bigfoot may work to draw them to you. Have faith that it will happen! Put yourself in the right place on a regular basis and you’re more likely to see one than if you stayed home in front of your computer or TV.
One more thing — if you’re full of fear, will Bigfoot sense it? Be emotionally prepared for what you might see!
Establishing your own nearby Sasquatch research area is much more practical than a trip across country to see the place where Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin saw one. Of course, you’re welcome to come check it out, but Bigfoot research doesn’t have to be an occasional thing. You’ll have a better chance for a sighting if you put yourself out there every day, and that means doing it close to home.
August 25, 2009
A Bigfoot Massacre? Bloody Nonsense!
John Green is a hero in the Bigfoot research community – and rightly so. As a young Canadian newsman he took time to come to the Klamath River Valley to explore early Bluff Creek Bigfoot footprints, and the Patterson-Gimlin film site. You can read his entire account of events including his part in them in his seminal work, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us
Also implicated are Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, Bigfoot film legends. It is a miracle that they saw Patty and now someone accuses them of helping to kill her and her family. What a terrible accusation! And it simply isn’t believable. Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek on October 20, 1967 for the filming of Patty. John Green wasn’t on the scene until June 1968 (see page 123 of his book.) [Update, 8/27/09: According to a more recent post on Cryptomundo, the footage of John Green was from late August/early September 1967, filmed by Rene Dahinden.] How could they all have participated in a Bigfoot massacre together? It doesn’t make sense and to accuse them is like attacking the holy icons of the Bigfoot research community. You can’t do that without repercussions.
I read what Loren Coleman posted about this on Cryptomundo yesterday morning – Bigfoot Massacre Theorist, John Green & Coverup – and my first impression was that the YouTube video referenced showed an inaccurate photoshopped image of a man with red hands. I tried to replicate the process with a screen capture from the original film in the video. I lightened, saturated, and adjusted the ‘before’ image of the scene and couldn’t find any red on the man’s hands. I also noted that the red hand version in the YouTube video also featured blurred faces on two of the men in the picture – another clear indication that major photoshopping took place. The man looks tanned, not bloody. I hope nobody falls for this theory, which looks inaccurate to me – and that’s saying it nicely.
My main point in responding to this is just to say that I live here in the Klamath River Valley (of which Bluff Creek is a part) and want to point out that the Patterson-Gimlin film took place in October when we’ve got a lot of red in Autumn foilage. The poison oak turns bright red at that time of year. We’ve also got dark red bark falling off the Madrone trees, and a lot of the soil here is red which could account for what MK Davis seems to think is a bloody dog paw print.
This is the original picture from the film, which I screen captured from the YouTube video before it was removed by whoever posted it there.
This is my lightened version showing no blood on the extended hand of the man on the right.
This is my lightened version with increased contrast showing no blood. Note that the red truck in the background is bright red, but not the man’s hand.
This is what appears to be a photoshopped version from the YouTube video showing blurred faces and a bloody hand.
The section of this photo said to be skin and blood could just as easily be a backpack frame style popular back in the sixties. I had one very similar to that at the time. Or it could be something else. And the red part could have been photoshopped in just like the red-hand photo above appears to be heavily photoshopped.Loren Coleman wrote a follow-up blog posting this morning with responses from John Green – which is where I got this photo. John Green said Bob Titmus wasn’t there and that the rifles were there to protect the dog at the dog owner’s insistence.
To anyone taking this massacre theory seriously – please go dig up the bones of these massacre victims to prove your allegations, and quit relying on poor quality old amateur films. When you produce impressive evidence, people may take this seriously, but not before. In the meantime, what seems to be an attack harming the reputations of our heroes (Patterson, Gimlin, Green, Titmus, and whoever else was implicated) is upsetting a lot of people.
I am amused at the thought of you on your hands and knees digging in one of our local gravel bars. As a person who has done a bit of digging around here (during prospecting) I can say it isn’t likely you’ll have much fun doing this, but if the theory is that believable to you, why not? Finding Bigfoot bones would be something like finding buried treasure.
