Written by David Osborne and Mark Banta
Sunday, 28 May 2006
Image
Introduction by David Osborne
We are proud this month to present our SRI interview with Kathy Moskowitz Strain, one of the lovely ladies of the bigfoot world. Many in this field aspire to be a researcher but Kathy is the real deal. Though there are other women involved in the quest to find this elusive beast, in my opinion, she is by far the most accessible of the bunch and can usually be found on her website or at Bigfootforums.com. Kathy is an anthropologist with the forest service and currently resides in Northern California.
A few summers ago, my son and I were fortunate enough to be able meet and go out in the field one night with Kathy and her soon-to-be husband, Robert Strain. We call blasted that night with one of her special “bigfoot screams” with some amazing results. She is always active in our bigfoot world, whether it is researching, communicating online with other bigfoot enthusiasts or speaking at a bigfoot conference. Kathy is currently scheduled to speak at the next bigfoot conference in Idaho this June. So, pour yourself an ice tea and listen in as we find out more about this amazing lady bigfooter.
Dave: What got you interested in sasquatch research?
Kathy: When I was a little girl, I saw the movie Legend of Boggy Creek. I knew then that I wanted to study Bigfoot for a living. I asked my teacher in 6th grade what I needed to do to study Bigfoot, and she said that anthropology was probably the discipline where Bigfoot belonged. So, I got my BA and MA in Anthropology and am currently the Forest Archaeologist for the U.S. Forest Service. I spend most of my free time in the field!
Dave: What is the most memorable experience you have had in the field?
Kathy: There are many, but probably the most memorable was the first time I saw a large bipedal footprint in the field. I was stunned and examined it, laying face down in the dirt, for about an hour before I decided it was real. Although I already felt that a North American Great Ape likely existed, this was the first real evidence — outside the Patterson-Gimlin film — that I had ever seen. It was like getting the best Christmas present ever!
Dave: If you had one piece of advice for people getting involved in the field of sasquatch research, what would it be?
Kathy: The one piece of advice is simple: don’t go into the field until you know the basics: field method; local plants and animals; bigfoot history. Basically, learn to read a topo map, to use a compass, to use casting material, and to collect evidence; always bring the basic research equipment with you and know how to use it; know what animal species occupy your research area and what they look like, smell like, sound like, and leave behind (footprints and scat); and know what it is you are looking for — if it’s footprints, be familiar with publications on “bigfoot” footprints, etc.
Dave: Do you feel that being a female is a positive or negative in this field?
Kathy: POSITIVE! The best and most intense field experiences I have had in search of this creature have been either in all-female groups or with more than one female present. Why? It probably has a lot to do with our voices, our smell and our size. We’re not a threat and we’re not trying to act like secret squirrels in the field. In every instance, we were singing, giggling and “acting like girls.” I think that non-threatening everyday activities like cooking, families playing, etc. are a draw!
Dave: What do you feel is the most compelling piece of evidence to date of sasquatch evidence?
Kathy: The Patterson-Gimlin Film is the best single piece of evidence. The film clearly shows an upright bipedal female walking across a sand bar demonstrating, in the enhanced frames, the mid-tarsal break as researched by Dr. Jeff Meldrum. Although I have never doubted the film or the people involved with it, the enhanced frames are more than convincing.
Secondly, I feel that the traditional Native American stories about bigfoot from across the United States, including the rock art from the Tule River Indian Reservation, are credible as a whole because the stories are all nearly identical in their descriptions of a large bipedal creature and it’s behavior. Unless all these tribes just happened to make up the same mythical creature, it is undeniable to me that each tribe saw and incorporated into their traditional stories, a real living animal.
Dave: How did the idea for the AIBR originate?
Kathy: More than a year ago, a group of people frustrated with how the BFRO, and research in general, was being conducted got together to talk about how we could do it better. It was a very slow and long process, as all group processes can be, and some I know were very frustrated at the rate we were moving. But it was worth it, as the AIBR is the only non-profit Bigfoot group in research today. We also wanted to make sure that all our members had a voice in how the AIBR conducted itself, so we have bylaws, guidelines and are governed by an elected Board of Directors, of which I am currently the Chair. To ensure that the AIBR remains true to all scientific and ethical standards, we are overseen by a Board of Advisors, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum, John Green, Alton Higgins, Rick Noll, Owen Caddy, Jimmy Chilcutt and John Mionzcynski. [Editor’s Note: We followed up on this question to clarify the statement that AIBR was the only official non-profit bigfoot organization doing research today.]
Dave: Do you mean that from an official status or that you are not out to make any money from AIBR?
Kathy: The AIBR is an official 501c(3) non-profit charitable organization. Donations made to the organization can be written off your taxes, and we can apply for grants, etc.
Dave: What niche does the AIBR fill that is needed in the field of sasquatch research?
Kathy: Right now, all groups exist to receive and investigate witness reports. The AIBR is different as we were created for the investigator, not the witness. We provide investigators with scientific protocols, methods, resources and a forum so they can do their work in accordance with the scientific method. Members can be individuals or entire groups hence the term “Alliance.” Reports that come into our website or toll-free number can be investigated by an individual or a regional group using the tools provided to them — like scientists to examine evidence or protocols for interviewing.
Dave: What or where do you envision the AIBR being ten years from now?
Kathy: I would like to see the AIBR become more like the American Medical Association or an umbrella organization. The AIBR would be made up of hundreds of regional groups, each using consistent research methods and tools. Reports would come into a central database that all researchers have access to, so patterns of behavior through GIS mapping and behavior fields can be seen. We would also offer field courses to certify individuals or groups in categories such as casting or evidence collection. If an individual breaks ethical codes, they would be dismissed or sanctioned by the AIBR.
Dave: What do you feel is the biggest weakness in current sasquatch research?
Kathy: Although I know that we are all amateurs at this, our biggest weakness is the lack of use of scientific methods. You don’t have to have a Ph.D. in Physics to know the correct method of gathering data and presenting that data to peers. If evidence we collect is ever going to be taken seriously, we need to do a better job on what evidence is collected, how it is collected and how it presented for review.
Dave: Describe the impact you feel sasquatch related websites have on research and investigation.
Kathy: Sasquatch related websites have allowed witnesses to easily find someone to tell their story to. It also allows other researchers to quickly and easily exchange ideas, materials and evidence. However, its biggest benefit, at least to me, is friendships and partnerships that are developed by the ability to meet folks with your same interest from all over the country!
Dave: How did you first get involved in speaking at bigfoot conferences?
Kathy: As a professional archaeologist, I had been gathering Native American bigfoot stories for many years, including those stories by the Yokuts tribe. One day, I mentioned the Hairy Man pictographs to John Green and we talked about it at length. He thought it was very interesting and an angle that other researchers hadn’t yet explored. It was he who suggested me as a speaker for the Willow Creek Symposium. I was very honored to be included in that historic event! Since then, I have spoken at the Texas Bigfoot Conference about the Hairy Man pictographs and will speak in at the Idaho Conference in June. I just returned from the lecture series at the University of Texas, San Antonio, Institute of Texan Cultures, where I spoke about the traditional bigfoot stories from tribes located in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The Institute has a wonderful exhibit on “Bigfoot in Texas?” which features some of my work and a cool video! Conferences are the best way to get to know other researchers and exchange ideas. I highly recommend them!
Dave: Do you think we are getting any closer to finding or proving our elusive prey, sasquatch, exists?
Kathy: Oh yes, I do. We have made some huge leaps in obtaining research funds and acceptance by the academia. We, as a discipline, have more people in the field than ever before! Through the use of the Internet, we are better able to get evidence to the right people. More work is needed, but the more time we spend in the field doing research, the closer we get!
Dave: What three general geographic areas would you send people to who are interested in doing research and finding evidence?
Kathy: California, Washington and Idaho/Montana.
Dave: What type of research or fact-finding do you conduct in the daytime as opposed to the nighttime while out in the field?
Kathy: During the day, we spend a good deal of time driving the dirt forest roads, looking for footprints or other items of interest. We do a lot of mapping, taking notes, and taking video or photos of the location. Often we stop at the local stores and see if anything usual has been reported.
Before dusk, while my husband, Bob Strain and our field partner, Tom Yamarone, set up camp, I set up the experiments and the record keeping for the evening. Our experiments are determined by the number of people present, as some require larger groups.
After nightfall, we build a large fire and cook a fragrant dinner, as Tom entertains us with his latest songs. We usually begin call blasting starting at 8:00 or 9:00 and blast on the hour, every hour. Throughout the evening, we conduct our experiments and record the responses.
This coming field season we have new experiments planned that we haven’t conducted before! Hopefully, we will have something good to report about them!
Dave: You have an excellent assortment of reputed sasquatch recordings on the AIBR website. Could you share how you found and recorded a couple of them?
Kathy: Depending on the recording, some are commonly available, others were given to me by the recorder for identification and personal use and others are my own recordings. If they are mine, they were recorded using a hand held recorder, originally tape, now digital. They were sent for analysis through the BFRO and only placed on the website if they could not be identified as a known animal.
Dave: You are also known as being the keeper of the “Tahoe Scream.” Could you share a bit about this recording and explain why it is so unique and valuable?
Kathy: I began working with the witness in late July of 2000 when he submitted a sound report to the BFRO. He said that he had been recording strange screams near his home. I visited him in August 2000 and he played me a few recordings of what he had been hearing. Although not the greatest quality, in my opinion, they were worth investigating.
We identified the best area to start the investigation by talking with his neighbors, also complaining about the sounds. I camped in the heart of the suspected area that evening. At 5:30 a.m., I was awakened by some loud banging noises, like sticks hitting each other, followed by two very loud howls coming from down canyon and only 100 feet or less from me. I jumped out of the tent, but saw nothing. A hike down the canyon hadn’t produced anything either…no prints of ANY animal.
I told the witness that there was something going on and he needed to invest in a better microphone and recording system, which he then bought and got set up. I then continued to visit the area for the next month, and continued to hear the calls and talk with other witnesses. During this time, I was making recordings, as was the witness. We hypothesized that there were three main screamers, one of which seemed to be very young. About a month after my first visit, the witness contacted me and said he had gotten the seemingly young one on tape, calling to something that answered back. I sent the recording to Dr. LeRoy Fish who felt that the recording was mammal, i.e., not a bird, and was not a carnivore, ungulate, or Perissodactyl. He felt it was closer to Cetacean and primate. Cetaceans were of course ruled out because of location and habitat. He sent the recording to the Cornell University, Field Ornithology Laboratory and although I did not get the final letter, because Dr. Fish unfortunately died right after this, I have his email that stated that the “the sonograms and analysis by the Cornell University did not match the call with any known animal, including human.” And that would include coyote.
This scream is important because there is no other alleged “baby bigfoot” calls recorded.
[Editor’s Note: Due to the timing of this interview and developments relative to sound recordings, we followed up our interview allowing Kathy Moskowitz Strain to update her response to the above question in light of these new developments.]
Dave: Thomas Steenburg and Gerry Matthews recently reported at bigfoot discussion forums that on April 5, 2006 at 9:30 am they saw coyotes making very strange sounds. These sounds were exactly the same sounds as the Chehalis sounds that until then had been regarded as possible bigfoot evidence. It was also stated these coyote sounds further discredited the Puyallup screamer of 1973 and the Klamath vocalization. In fact, it was stated in the thread that all bigfoot vocalizations recorded should now be put under suspicion. How would you defend your recordings, including the Tahoe Scream, in light of these new findings?
Kathy: The Tahoe Scream was analyzed by Cornell University and did not come back as any known animal, including coyotes. I am confident in the work done by Cornell University and Dr. LeRoy Fish. As for the Klamath, John Freitas has stated that qualified individuals analyzed it as well and it also came back as unknown. I don’t know much about the other calls, so I can’t comment on them.
I am very sure that there are recordings that some attribute to bigfoot that are really known animals. However, I do not believe every recording currently unidentified is really a coyote. Like footprints, just because one is found to be a double-tap of a bear, does not mean every print ever cast is really a bear. All recordings have to be evaluated individually, and examined by a qualified biologist or sound analyst. Then, if the sound cannot be identified, note it and continue to seek out the source. It may be a common animal making a noise not previously associated with that animal, it could be a common animal out of its natural range or it could be from an undocumented animal. All those are possibilities. For those that do not find value in recording vocalizations or using call blasting as a tool, that is your choice. All researchers have to decide what methods work best for them and what evidence they will gather.
Dave: Have you or are you planning to write a book relating to bigfoot or sasquatch?
Kathy: Yes, I have some manuscripts in the works. It’s hard to get time to work on them though with so many other things to do. During the spring, summer and fall, my priority is fieldwork, so I don’t get to work on it as often as I should. I do, however, have an article that will be published in a science journal, hopefully before the June meetings.
Dave: What three books on sasquatch do you consider to be “musts” for any bigfoot researcher or seeker?
Kathy: Bigfoot/Sasquatch Evidence by Grover Krantz; North America’s Great Ape: the Sasquatch by John Bindernagel; and Raincoast Sasquatch by Rob Alley. When Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s new book comes out, that will surely be on my list as well!
Dave: What is the funniest thing that has ever happened to you in the field?
Kathy: Montra Freitas and I were out at the location where the nest and very fresh footprints had been found just two hours before. This was our first “stake out” together. Preparing for a long night, we had brought every snack known to man and we sat in the back of the truck eating, laughing and giggling. Suddenly something large started moving below us. We listened, and it was clearly starting to circle our position. Needless to say, we were very frightened. We were unarmed and unsure what could happen. After a few minutes of this thing getting closer and closer, she hopped out of the bed of the truck and into the cab. I stayed, but she pleaded with me to come inside. I realized that she was getting upset, and I was too, so after one very large crash about 10 feet from me, I too headed inside. We cracked the windows and listened. It moved to around the front of the vehicle and was coming right at us. Just then, Montra leaned over and whispered in my ear, “Oh no!” she said in a soft voice! “What?” I said. “We left the snacks in the bed of the truck!”
Dave: The scariest?
Kathy: See above!
Dave: Anything else you would like to add?
Kathy: Yes, never be afraid to ask a question…that’s how you learn!
No comments:
Post a Comment