Our guest will be Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy member Monica Rawlins. The show starts at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central and can be found at the link to the right. Please tune in and support great research.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Sasquatch Experience Tonight...
Our guest will be Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy member Monica Rawlins. The show starts at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central and can be found at the link to the right. Please tune in and support great research.
Review: The Sasquatch Experience 6-16-07
This was a short, impromptu show with me interviewing Bill Green. We discussed such things as Sasquatch diet, what Bill thinks these creatures are, his sighting encounter, his opinion on the in-fighting and backbiting within this community, what his opinion is on stories of these creatures helping people in trouble in the woods and other subjects. It was a fun and informal show, and enjoyable and fun. Thanks, Bill. Our next program is tomorrow night at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central with Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy member Monica Rawlins. The link can be found at the button to the right. Please tune in and support great research.
Impromptu "Sasquatch Experience" Today!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will be interviewing Bill Green on a short, 30-minute segment today at 6:30 EST/5:30 Central at the address on the right on Blog Talk Radio. Hope everyone can tune in and support great research.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Bigfoot in Cherokee County?
By Eddie Glenn, March 3, 2004
First of all, let's be very clear about one thing: This is the Tahlequah Daily Press, not the Weekly World News. So we're not going to tell you that Osama Bin Laden and Elvis are both alive and well, and living in the woods of Pumpkin Hollow, just a few miles outside our fair city of Tahlequah. Bigfoot, on the other hand, might be. Several weeks ago, a young Tahlequonian who shall remain anonymous for the time being gave a photo to a Daily Press editorial staff member. He said his mother had shot the photo in the Pumpkin Hollow area, and that it plainly showed what could only be identified as Bigfoot him/herself, right smack-dab in the middle of the picture. After some investigation, we have to admit that the aberration in the photograph - while not clearly identifiable as Bigfoot - isn't really identifiable as anything besides Bigfoot either. Of course, it could be a scratch on the lens of a camera, or a speck of dust on the film , or any number of other technical explanations. But we can't completely rule out the possibility that it just might, maybe - within the realm of all possibilities - really be a hairy, upright-walking creature that is commonly known as "Bigfoot." If it isn't Bigfoot in the picture, what the heck - no harm done. But if it is Bigfoot, or a variant thereof, it wouldn't be the first one sighted in these parts. According to the Aug. 3, 1990, edition of the Tahlequah Daily Press, a Bigfoot sighting on the east side of Eldon Hill was reported to the Cherokee County Sheriff's Office on Aug. 1 of that year. "We kind of shook our heads when we got the call, but the lady sounded serious," Jack Goss, then an investigator with the CCSO, is reported as saying. "She said Bigfoot was in her back yard. We thought she might have seen a bear, but she was really sure that it wasn't. She said it was hairy and stank really bad." The story also cites then-and-now Cherokee County Undersheriff Dan Garber, who said several residents in the area had reported similar sightings, and that several calves and sheep had been reported missing in the area. "I've known other areas to get calls like this, but this is the first time we've heard anything like this in Cherokee County," Garber said in the 1990 story. On Monday this week, Garber said he remembered that incident fairly well. "It caused quite a commotion for about a week," he said. "The people from the national Bigfoot organization called up and said, 'If you hear of any other sightings, let us know.'" The national organization to which Garber referred is the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, and according to their Web site, the 1990 Eldon incident is a "Class A" sighting. According to that Web site: "Class A reports involve clear sightings, in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. There are few footprint cases that are very well-documented. Those are considered Class A reports as well, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low." The Web site also states that Cherokee County Sheriff's Deputy Joe Weavel investigated the sighting, and found foot impressions big enough to place both his feet in. It also states that two days after the initial report, an 8-year-old girl and her mother described a similar creature rummaging through a trash pile near their house. "Their dog chased it but returned with its tail between its legs. The creature was described as 8 feet tall with dark brown frizzy hair and similar to a bear, except that it was described as walking upright," states the BFRO report. Since 1990, there haven't been any other sightings - until now. Of course, if Bigfoot really does live in the woods of Cherokee County, it seems reasonable to assume that the person most likely to see him (or her) would be someone who spends a lot of time out in those woods. That someone would be Oklahoma Game Warden Brady May. May, however, has never seen Bigfoot. But he has seen a couple of bears. In fact, May said 1990 was during a several -year-long period in which bear sightings were common in Cherokee County. Most of the bears in Oklahoma are in the southeastern part of the state, but young males are often run out of normal mating areas by older, larger males. "It's not uncommon for our department to go to an area where there's a nuisance bear complaint, trap it, and release it," said May. "It wouldn't be uncommon for someone to see one around here." Still, the 1990 Eldon Bigfoot sighting is (at least in Bigfoot parlance) a "Class A" event, and according to the BFRO Web site, " Several reports near this area [have been made] since the early '70s, also possible reports near Peggs, Okla., northwest of Tahlequah, Okla." According to Garber, regardless of whether Bigfoot is a Cherokee County resident, the terrain is definitely conducive to such sightings."One thing that always seems to be consistent in these sightings," he said, "is they always seem to be in wooded areas where an animal could move around un-detected. You don't get many sightings in Ariz., or Enid [Okla.] for that matter; I mean, how many Bigfoot sightings do you hear of in Enid?"
Learn more; The official Web site of the Bigfoot Researchers Organization is www.bfro.net. The page explaining the 1990 Eldon Hill sightings is www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=2041.
First of all, let's be very clear about one thing: This is the Tahlequah Daily Press, not the Weekly World News. So we're not going to tell you that Osama Bin Laden and Elvis are both alive and well, and living in the woods of Pumpkin Hollow, just a few miles outside our fair city of Tahlequah. Bigfoot, on the other hand, might be. Several weeks ago, a young Tahlequonian who shall remain anonymous for the time being gave a photo to a Daily Press editorial staff member. He said his mother had shot the photo in the Pumpkin Hollow area, and that it plainly showed what could only be identified as Bigfoot him/herself, right smack-dab in the middle of the picture. After some investigation, we have to admit that the aberration in the photograph - while not clearly identifiable as Bigfoot - isn't really identifiable as anything besides Bigfoot either. Of course, it could be a scratch on the lens of a camera, or a speck of dust on the film , or any number of other technical explanations. But we can't completely rule out the possibility that it just might, maybe - within the realm of all possibilities - really be a hairy, upright-walking creature that is commonly known as "Bigfoot." If it isn't Bigfoot in the picture, what the heck - no harm done. But if it is Bigfoot, or a variant thereof, it wouldn't be the first one sighted in these parts. According to the Aug. 3, 1990, edition of the Tahlequah Daily Press, a Bigfoot sighting on the east side of Eldon Hill was reported to the Cherokee County Sheriff's Office on Aug. 1 of that year. "We kind of shook our heads when we got the call, but the lady sounded serious," Jack Goss, then an investigator with the CCSO, is reported as saying. "She said Bigfoot was in her back yard. We thought she might have seen a bear, but she was really sure that it wasn't. She said it was hairy and stank really bad." The story also cites then-and-now Cherokee County Undersheriff Dan Garber, who said several residents in the area had reported similar sightings, and that several calves and sheep had been reported missing in the area. "I've known other areas to get calls like this, but this is the first time we've heard anything like this in Cherokee County," Garber said in the 1990 story. On Monday this week, Garber said he remembered that incident fairly well. "It caused quite a commotion for about a week," he said. "The people from the national Bigfoot organization called up and said, 'If you hear of any other sightings, let us know.'" The national organization to which Garber referred is the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, and according to their Web site, the 1990 Eldon incident is a "Class A" sighting. According to that Web site: "Class A reports involve clear sightings, in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. There are few footprint cases that are very well-documented. Those are considered Class A reports as well, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low." The Web site also states that Cherokee County Sheriff's Deputy Joe Weavel investigated the sighting, and found foot impressions big enough to place both his feet in. It also states that two days after the initial report, an 8-year-old girl and her mother described a similar creature rummaging through a trash pile near their house. "Their dog chased it but returned with its tail between its legs. The creature was described as 8 feet tall with dark brown frizzy hair and similar to a bear, except that it was described as walking upright," states the BFRO report. Since 1990, there haven't been any other sightings - until now. Of course, if Bigfoot really does live in the woods of Cherokee County, it seems reasonable to assume that the person most likely to see him (or her) would be someone who spends a lot of time out in those woods. That someone would be Oklahoma Game Warden Brady May. May, however, has never seen Bigfoot. But he has seen a couple of bears. In fact, May said 1990 was during a several -year-long period in which bear sightings were common in Cherokee County. Most of the bears in Oklahoma are in the southeastern part of the state, but young males are often run out of normal mating areas by older, larger males. "It's not uncommon for our department to go to an area where there's a nuisance bear complaint, trap it, and release it," said May. "It wouldn't be uncommon for someone to see one around here." Still, the 1990 Eldon Bigfoot sighting is (at least in Bigfoot parlance) a "Class A" event, and according to the BFRO Web site, " Several reports near this area [have been made] since the early '70s, also possible reports near Peggs, Okla., northwest of Tahlequah, Okla." According to Garber, regardless of whether Bigfoot is a Cherokee County resident, the terrain is definitely conducive to such sightings."One thing that always seems to be consistent in these sightings," he said, "is they always seem to be in wooded areas where an animal could move around un-detected. You don't get many sightings in Ariz., or Enid [Okla.] for that matter; I mean, how many Bigfoot sightings do you hear of in Enid?"
Learn more; The official Web site of the Bigfoot Researchers Organization is www.bfro.net. The page explaining the 1990 Eldon Hill sightings is www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=2041.
EDITORIAL
Todd Neiss, AmericanPrimate@aol.com
I personally was disappointed in the way Greg chose to present his case on Saturday at the IBS meeting. He immediately launched into a pathetic tirade aimed squarely at his critics. How dare they question his assertions?!! The adamantly defensive Mr. Long, sweating profusely throughout the two hour session, read from a prepared script (at least 15 pages in length) without allowing any questions from the audience until the end (some 45 minutes later). Even then it was difficult to get a word in edgewise. Yours truly was eventually told that I was asking too many questions. I must have hit a nerve or two. It was difficult to idly sit by while he let loose a string of assumptions and accusations, much of which was refutable if not circumstantial at best. Not only did Mr. Long viscously attack the late Roger Patterson (who could hardly defend himself), but he also attacked a number of prominent researchers (ie. Coleman, Byrne, Meldrum, Krantz, Keating, Green, Short, etc.). No one was spared, including the audience present, as he relegated the entire Bigfoot community to that of "a cult." He chided the field (meaning you and I), for not employing a more conventional scientific approach (I thought this was supposed to be specifically about the authenticity of the P/G film...guess not). He went so far as to cast dispersions on both Bob Gilmin and Patricia Patterson. Their crime? Refusing to give Mr. Long an interview (Ah ha...they must be hiding something)! When someone asked Greg if he were afraid of being sued for slander and defamation, Long smirked, "Bring it on! It will just sell more books!" The only researcher that seemed to escape Greg's acidic tongue was the late Rene Dahinden, whom he selectively quoted when it fit his agenda. In a "clever" bit of salesmanship, Mr. Long would start several threads which begged an answer (usually by presenting his argument it in the form of a question), only to leave everyone hang- ing only to insist that we would have to buy his book to get the answer (pass the snake oil). In all fairness, I applaud Greg's willingness to walk into the "lion's den" on Saturday (afterward I privat- ely told him as much). Even so, he came prep-ared to insult everyone in the room...and he did.
When asked, "Where is the alleged suit?" he admitted he doesn't know. When asked if he had ever been to the P/G film site, he admitted he had not. When I asked him, "If Patterson perpetua-ted a hoax, why didn't he admit to it on his death bed?" Greg merely quipped that Roger was a pathological liar to the very end (no "GOT-CHA?"). He had the audacity to declare that the onus was not his to prove any of his assertions, but rather up to all of us to prove him wrong. To prove that a something never took place over 36 years ago is akin to proving that Venus isn't made out of Swiss cheese. To wit, if you can't prove it isn't, then it must be so because I say so.
He also teased us with the possibility that there will be an attempt to recreate the P/G film staring none other than Bob Hieronimous as the immortal "Patty!" When he announced that he would be a technical advisor on the stunt, I pressed him to insure that the suit used would be true to the original. "Greg...since you said you are going to be an advisor on this recreation attempt, are you willing to openly announce, here and now, that you will insist that the costume they use is one based upon 1967 technology?" His hesitant reply was, "I'll try."
In the final analysis, Mr. Long's seemingly well researched witch hunt, seemed to take the easy road by joining the majority of skeptics who poo-poo even the notion that such a creature can even exist. Unfortunately, the foundation of his case is based on hearsay and his self-proclaimed superior skills of judging character. I hope, for Mr. Long's sake, that someone doesn't investigate his private background for skeletons. His attempt at character assassination makes himself a prime candidate for just such an inquisition. Since he openly admitted to being privy to all of the online discussion groups (lurking?), I will assume that he will read this letter as well. So to you I say, I hope your house is not made of glass my friend. Beast Regards,Todd Neiss AmericanPrimate@aol.com Independent Researcher/Investigator, Portland, Oregon
I personally was disappointed in the way Greg chose to present his case on Saturday at the IBS meeting. He immediately launched into a pathetic tirade aimed squarely at his critics. How dare they question his assertions?!! The adamantly defensive Mr. Long, sweating profusely throughout the two hour session, read from a prepared script (at least 15 pages in length) without allowing any questions from the audience until the end (some 45 minutes later). Even then it was difficult to get a word in edgewise. Yours truly was eventually told that I was asking too many questions. I must have hit a nerve or two. It was difficult to idly sit by while he let loose a string of assumptions and accusations, much of which was refutable if not circumstantial at best. Not only did Mr. Long viscously attack the late Roger Patterson (who could hardly defend himself), but he also attacked a number of prominent researchers (ie. Coleman, Byrne, Meldrum, Krantz, Keating, Green, Short, etc.). No one was spared, including the audience present, as he relegated the entire Bigfoot community to that of "a cult." He chided the field (meaning you and I), for not employing a more conventional scientific approach (I thought this was supposed to be specifically about the authenticity of the P/G film...guess not). He went so far as to cast dispersions on both Bob Gilmin and Patricia Patterson. Their crime? Refusing to give Mr. Long an interview (Ah ha...they must be hiding something)! When someone asked Greg if he were afraid of being sued for slander and defamation, Long smirked, "Bring it on! It will just sell more books!" The only researcher that seemed to escape Greg's acidic tongue was the late Rene Dahinden, whom he selectively quoted when it fit his agenda. In a "clever" bit of salesmanship, Mr. Long would start several threads which begged an answer (usually by presenting his argument it in the form of a question), only to leave everyone hang- ing only to insist that we would have to buy his book to get the answer (pass the snake oil). In all fairness, I applaud Greg's willingness to walk into the "lion's den" on Saturday (afterward I privat- ely told him as much). Even so, he came prep-ared to insult everyone in the room...and he did.
When asked, "Where is the alleged suit?" he admitted he doesn't know. When asked if he had ever been to the P/G film site, he admitted he had not. When I asked him, "If Patterson perpetua-ted a hoax, why didn't he admit to it on his death bed?" Greg merely quipped that Roger was a pathological liar to the very end (no "GOT-CHA?"). He had the audacity to declare that the onus was not his to prove any of his assertions, but rather up to all of us to prove him wrong. To prove that a something never took place over 36 years ago is akin to proving that Venus isn't made out of Swiss cheese. To wit, if you can't prove it isn't, then it must be so because I say so.
He also teased us with the possibility that there will be an attempt to recreate the P/G film staring none other than Bob Hieronimous as the immortal "Patty!" When he announced that he would be a technical advisor on the stunt, I pressed him to insure that the suit used would be true to the original. "Greg...since you said you are going to be an advisor on this recreation attempt, are you willing to openly announce, here and now, that you will insist that the costume they use is one based upon 1967 technology?" His hesitant reply was, "I'll try."
In the final analysis, Mr. Long's seemingly well researched witch hunt, seemed to take the easy road by joining the majority of skeptics who poo-poo even the notion that such a creature can even exist. Unfortunately, the foundation of his case is based on hearsay and his self-proclaimed superior skills of judging character. I hope, for Mr. Long's sake, that someone doesn't investigate his private background for skeletons. His attempt at character assassination makes himself a prime candidate for just such an inquisition. Since he openly admitted to being privy to all of the online discussion groups (lurking?), I will assume that he will read this letter as well. So to you I say, I hope your house is not made of glass my friend. Beast Regards,Todd Neiss AmericanPrimate@aol.com Independent Researcher/Investigator, Portland, Oregon
Track Record 83-Jan 1999
To finish off January, on the 30th, David Wasson of the Yakima Herald-Republic, (509) 577-7678, did an article on a man who has come forward to say he wore the suit in the Patterson film (number 64 Dahinden says).
Zillah attorney Barry M. Woodard, (509) 829-5600, “confirmed he’s representing a Yakima man who says he wore the elaborate monkey suit in the Patterson-Gimlin film, and that his client has passed a lie detector test to prove it.” The unnamed man (Bob, drives a truck for Pepsi), 58, wanted some help in negotiating a deal for rights to his tale. Supposedly, Sun tabloid bought his story, and it should be published before you read this (not by 16th). They usually pay about $2,000 for a story like that, true or not. Maybe that explains why a hoaxer would dress up in a big breasted female animal costume, and later admit he was a cross-dresser.
A retired Yakima police officer, Jim McCormick, did the lie-detector work. He is a certified polygraph examiner and did a 75 minute test on the unnamed man, and stated that he was telling the truth. In a personal phone interview 1/29, Wasson said that question #43 of the test was, “Is it true you were in the Bigfoot suit when Patterson shot that film in 1967?” To which the answer was “yes.”
Peter Byrne went to Yakima on 2/3 and had lunch with Wasson, and talked by phone to both Woodard and McCormick. Wasson said he’d been swamped with over 100 phone calls about the article...calls from England, Germany, and 12 calls from Eric Beckjord. He finally had to tell him not to call back again, to which Beckjord replies that he’ll sue them. Wasson gave him his editors number and hung up on him.
As Peter Byrne has, using several methods, determined that Patty was 7’3” tall, he was concerned with the size of the hoaxer. Attorney Woodward said his client was about 6’ tall, 200#. Said also that they would be having a press conference and releasing more information in a few days. Peter thought the attorney commented that the client was a truck driver. Woodward asked his client if a “suit” could be produced, and he answered, “I’ll try.”
McCormick when interviewed said that he thought the fellow was about 6’1”, and 200 pounds. Almost the same as Woodard’s reply, and both heights are far too short for the 7’3” Patty creature. Peter asked if the fellow had passed the lie detector test, and McCormick hesitated, saying, “well, I better not give you the answer to that.”
Wasson interviewed Mac McEntire, a retired Yakima salesman that recalls Patterson (Roger died in 1972). He said that at parties in the old days Patterson and others would laugh at the hoax, and at the anthropologists that had said the creature was authentic.
Also, Bob Swanson, former owner of the Chinook Press in Yakima in the mid 60’s, said he had printed 10,000 copies of the Patterson book on Bigfoot sightings in 1966, before the famous film. A large printing bill and sluggish book sales were reversed when the film became famous. At one time he indicated that Patterson had replied to a question after a Bigfoot sighting, that the suit “didn’t itch too bad.” By 1967 they had parted company.
In balance though, one of Roger Patterson’s better friends at the time was Jerry Merritt. “I was supposed to go with Roger and Bob but had to cancel at the last minute.” Seems his wife, a non-believer, wouldn’t let him go on the now famous, trip. He said Roger went to the grave convinced he’d seen Bigfoot, Ron Olson being at his side. Larry Lund knows Merritt well, and he had said that Roger was his friend, and would never lie to him. If there was a hoax, Roger would have told him, he said. Larry and I plan to do an extensive interview with Merritt soon, and also with Ralph Mason, former business manager for Roger. An earlier interview with Mason produced piles of old business records which he allowed us to borrow and duplicate.
Before I leave this editorial, would like to mention that there has been considerable discussion about the height of Bigfoot on the Internet relating to Grover Krantz’s earlier estimate of Patty’s height in his 1992 book, “Big Footprints.” Using a foot-to-height ratio from the 14.5 inch long foot (from track), he concluded the creature’s standing height was 6’6”.
Peter Byrne took a photo of Mike Hogdson, 6 foot, 160#, waist 32”, in the same spot, and with the careful use of a caliper on comparable slides (making sure stumps and such the same size), determined that Patty was 7’3.5” Using comparable methods, Jeff Glickman of NASI came to the same conclusion.
By chance, Chris Murphy, noted a limb that the creature stepped on in the original film, was in the possession of Rene Dahinden. Using this as a “ruler.” Chris determined that the creature was 7’3.3” in height. Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum now apparently agree with the over 7’ height.
Byrne, using the waist size of Mike Hogsdon, determined that the 2.5 times larger Patty, had a waist size of about 80 inches.
Zillah attorney Barry M. Woodard, (509) 829-5600, “confirmed he’s representing a Yakima man who says he wore the elaborate monkey suit in the Patterson-Gimlin film, and that his client has passed a lie detector test to prove it.” The unnamed man (Bob, drives a truck for Pepsi), 58, wanted some help in negotiating a deal for rights to his tale. Supposedly, Sun tabloid bought his story, and it should be published before you read this (not by 16th). They usually pay about $2,000 for a story like that, true or not. Maybe that explains why a hoaxer would dress up in a big breasted female animal costume, and later admit he was a cross-dresser.
A retired Yakima police officer, Jim McCormick, did the lie-detector work. He is a certified polygraph examiner and did a 75 minute test on the unnamed man, and stated that he was telling the truth. In a personal phone interview 1/29, Wasson said that question #43 of the test was, “Is it true you were in the Bigfoot suit when Patterson shot that film in 1967?” To which the answer was “yes.”
Peter Byrne went to Yakima on 2/3 and had lunch with Wasson, and talked by phone to both Woodard and McCormick. Wasson said he’d been swamped with over 100 phone calls about the article...calls from England, Germany, and 12 calls from Eric Beckjord. He finally had to tell him not to call back again, to which Beckjord replies that he’ll sue them. Wasson gave him his editors number and hung up on him.
As Peter Byrne has, using several methods, determined that Patty was 7’3” tall, he was concerned with the size of the hoaxer. Attorney Woodward said his client was about 6’ tall, 200#. Said also that they would be having a press conference and releasing more information in a few days. Peter thought the attorney commented that the client was a truck driver. Woodward asked his client if a “suit” could be produced, and he answered, “I’ll try.”
McCormick when interviewed said that he thought the fellow was about 6’1”, and 200 pounds. Almost the same as Woodard’s reply, and both heights are far too short for the 7’3” Patty creature. Peter asked if the fellow had passed the lie detector test, and McCormick hesitated, saying, “well, I better not give you the answer to that.”
Wasson interviewed Mac McEntire, a retired Yakima salesman that recalls Patterson (Roger died in 1972). He said that at parties in the old days Patterson and others would laugh at the hoax, and at the anthropologists that had said the creature was authentic.
Also, Bob Swanson, former owner of the Chinook Press in Yakima in the mid 60’s, said he had printed 10,000 copies of the Patterson book on Bigfoot sightings in 1966, before the famous film. A large printing bill and sluggish book sales were reversed when the film became famous. At one time he indicated that Patterson had replied to a question after a Bigfoot sighting, that the suit “didn’t itch too bad.” By 1967 they had parted company.
In balance though, one of Roger Patterson’s better friends at the time was Jerry Merritt. “I was supposed to go with Roger and Bob but had to cancel at the last minute.” Seems his wife, a non-believer, wouldn’t let him go on the now famous, trip. He said Roger went to the grave convinced he’d seen Bigfoot, Ron Olson being at his side. Larry Lund knows Merritt well, and he had said that Roger was his friend, and would never lie to him. If there was a hoax, Roger would have told him, he said. Larry and I plan to do an extensive interview with Merritt soon, and also with Ralph Mason, former business manager for Roger. An earlier interview with Mason produced piles of old business records which he allowed us to borrow and duplicate.
Before I leave this editorial, would like to mention that there has been considerable discussion about the height of Bigfoot on the Internet relating to Grover Krantz’s earlier estimate of Patty’s height in his 1992 book, “Big Footprints.” Using a foot-to-height ratio from the 14.5 inch long foot (from track), he concluded the creature’s standing height was 6’6”.
Peter Byrne took a photo of Mike Hogdson, 6 foot, 160#, waist 32”, in the same spot, and with the careful use of a caliper on comparable slides (making sure stumps and such the same size), determined that Patty was 7’3.5” Using comparable methods, Jeff Glickman of NASI came to the same conclusion.
By chance, Chris Murphy, noted a limb that the creature stepped on in the original film, was in the possession of Rene Dahinden. Using this as a “ruler.” Chris determined that the creature was 7’3.3” in height. Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum now apparently agree with the over 7’ height.
Byrne, using the waist size of Mike Hogsdon, determined that the 2.5 times larger Patty, had a waist size of about 80 inches.
MEETING STUFF, from the March 2004 Track Record
Well, this was an unusual meeting. Most of the people I talked with after the meeting were quite upset at speaker Greg Long. He seemed quite defensive, and very aggressive in his attitude towards the large gathering at Dad’s Club. Mostly, the crowd appeared to react to his attitude and not the information he imparted, though, many questions were answered with, “read the book.”
Mostly though, Long’s message was ignored by “true believers” in the ranks…many of which were not aware of some of the Patterson/Gimlin film “problems.” Those that were aware, were angry at having the problems thrown in their faces.
Many have been long aware of things like:How did the film, shot on Friday afternoon, make it to Yakima to be viewed on Sunday; or, how did the film get developed on a weekend when develop- ing studios were closed. What was millionaire Al DeAtley's, Patterson’s brother-in-law’s, part in the play, besides financing Patterson... and yes, Patterson was known as a bit of a cad.
Greg has developed a trail of suspicion; starting with the veracity of Patterson, who apparently purchased a gorilla suit on sale from costumer Phillip Morris (not related to cigarette brand). This was verified by Long's personal interview with Morris, who even sent Long a copy of the advertisement of the gorilla suit on sale. Then, Patterson supposedly hired Bob Hieronimus, to wear the suit for a promised, but not paid, $1000.
The suit had apparently been altered considerably by Patterson; football helmet added to head, football pads to shoulders, feet and hands attached to suit, breasts and such. Many of the alterations were from the hide of a red horse. Bob said his mother discovered the suit in the trunk of his car, and tried the head on, as did another relative. There was apparently much talk of the exploit at a local bar. And I still have not decided what the possible role of Mr. Gimlin...near neighbor of supposed hoaxer Bob Hieronimous, might have been. Bob said he mailed the film from Eureka, which implied that the film had been exposed earlier than said to be, to have made it to Yakima in the mails.
In all, I see a lot of smoke, though no fire yet...enough that I'll probably drop my Patty belief from 90% to 75%, giving Mr. Long the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
Mostly though, Long’s message was ignored by “true believers” in the ranks…many of which were not aware of some of the Patterson/Gimlin film “problems.” Those that were aware, were angry at having the problems thrown in their faces.
Many have been long aware of things like:How did the film, shot on Friday afternoon, make it to Yakima to be viewed on Sunday; or, how did the film get developed on a weekend when develop- ing studios were closed. What was millionaire Al DeAtley's, Patterson’s brother-in-law’s, part in the play, besides financing Patterson... and yes, Patterson was known as a bit of a cad.
Greg has developed a trail of suspicion; starting with the veracity of Patterson, who apparently purchased a gorilla suit on sale from costumer Phillip Morris (not related to cigarette brand). This was verified by Long's personal interview with Morris, who even sent Long a copy of the advertisement of the gorilla suit on sale. Then, Patterson supposedly hired Bob Hieronimus, to wear the suit for a promised, but not paid, $1000.
The suit had apparently been altered considerably by Patterson; football helmet added to head, football pads to shoulders, feet and hands attached to suit, breasts and such. Many of the alterations were from the hide of a red horse. Bob said his mother discovered the suit in the trunk of his car, and tried the head on, as did another relative. There was apparently much talk of the exploit at a local bar. And I still have not decided what the possible role of Mr. Gimlin...near neighbor of supposed hoaxer Bob Hieronimous, might have been. Bob said he mailed the film from Eureka, which implied that the film had been exposed earlier than said to be, to have made it to Yakima in the mails.
In all, I see a lot of smoke, though no fire yet...enough that I'll probably drop my Patty belief from 90% to 75%, giving Mr. Long the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Review: The Sasquatch Triangle 6-14-07
This was a great program with International Bigfoot Society President and founder Ray Crowe. He discussed how he got started in the research, recent sightings in Oregon, his association with Tom Biscardi, his theory on what the Sasquatch is and other subjects. He answered questions from Bill Green and Billy Willard, as well as a couple of questions I asked. It was a fun and great show, and I was honored to produce the show. Don's next scheduled guest is Daniel Perez of the Center For Bigfoot Studies in Norwalk, California, next Thursday at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central. The link can be found over to the right, so please tune in and support great research.
Editorial: Should we be neutral on Tom Biscardi?
I can already predict I will take some heat for this editorial, but I am willing to take it anyway. I have a neutral stance on Tom Biscardi because I do not know the man, so I cannot say whether or not he is a hoaxer or an alleged hoaxer or a fraud or whatever. Sure, most of the Bigfoot Community has their own opinions on Mr. Biscardi, but some people go against the grain and have a neutral stance on him until they meet him. Some like myself have decided to make up our own minds about Biscardi rather than following along with the rest of the Bigfoot Community. Of course, what happens when a credible researcher associates with Biscardi or goes on his radio show is, most of the Bigfooters jump on the person that decided to associate with Biscardi or say that person is a sell-out. That is utterly ridiculous and absolutely unprofessional. People choose to associate with Biscardi or go on his radio show to get out the message of Bigfoot, not because it's the Tom Biscardi show. Why don't certain individuals in the BF Community let others make up their own minds about somebody before they condemn someone? Am I defending Biscardi? No, although it may seem like I am. He has made his share of mistakes and goofs in his time, but haven't we all? Biscardi's detractors tend to harp on the "Capture story" from two years ago and use that against him, but perhaps they need to re-examine that before they condemn the man. Now, am I trying to tell people to change their hostile stances towards Tom? No, because I cannot make people do anything they don't want to. But, at least back off on publicly bashing the man until you have the absolute facts on him. Bash in private all you want, but bashing someone in public can come back to bite you, so be careful. Now, to close, I will say this-he can come off as a bit of a slick, used-car salesman type to those who don't really know him, and that can be detrimental to Tom, but let's not forget, Roger Patterson was also a used-car salesman type, and look what he did. A lot of people ask "What has Tom Biscardi done for the Bigfoot Community?" Well, I say he has promoted awareness for the studies of these animals and has given people the opportunity to tell their stories of their sightings without fear of ridicule. No matter what one thinks of Tom, at least he gets out there. There is an old saying-"Sweep around your own front door before you sweep around someone else's."
Sasquatch Triangle Tonight...
Don's guest will be International Bigfoot Society President and founder Ray Crowe (no relation to Russell). The show starts at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central and can be found at the link to the right. As always, please tune in and support great research.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Interview with Monica Rawlins, from Melissa Hovey's "The Search For Bigfoot" Blog
Women in Bigfoot Research, Monica Rawlins
Interview by Melissa Hovey
*Photos provided by Chris Buntenbah
Wildlife Photographer*
Monica, what can I say. If you want the truth - this is the woman to go to, just be ready for her response. She is straight forward and pulls no punches. Monica is not only a member of the Texas Bigfoot Research Center, she is a strong voice within the organization.
When I first became involved with the TBRC and met Monica, I knew she would be someone that would be tough on me when necessary, but a good friend should I accept her challenge to be willing to push myself and challenge my own comfort levels. My friendship with Monica has been something I value very much. She has, in all honesty, helped me through some rough times when I doubted myself and my place in this research.
Someone once told me - I balance beauty with brains -- that person has not met Monica. Monica is as tough as nails, but she is very intelligent, and can hold her own in a debate with the best of them ( I am grateful to her and I agree on most issues ). I admire people who stand up for what they believe in, and are not afraid to say exactly what they think, and Monica is one of those people.
I respect Monica first and foremost; she has achieved excellent standing within the TBRC, and she is a respected leader within this fine group of researchers. I am very proud to profile Monica Rawlins here on this blog, and it's about time.
Women in Bigfoot Research, Monica Rawlins
Please tell the readers about yourself. What you would like people to know about you.
Monica: I grew up in Northern California and spend most of my summer vacations in a remote part of South West Oregon, so I really grew up around the Bigfoot legend. I moved to Texas in the Spring of 1992, and really had just a passing interest in the subject of Southern Bigfoot. My only exposure to such an idea was with the film, "The Legend of Boggy Creek", which inspired me to go out and research here in the South. I am convinced that such a creature exists in the Pacific Northwest, but am still very skeptical that there are any here in the South, the regions that I have researched anyway.
How long have you been active in the field of Bigfoot research?
Monica: I have been active for the last 4 years.
Are you active in any Organized Groups, or are you Independent? Or Both?
Monica: I am active, as much as possible, with the Texas Bigfoot Research Center. I began my role with this group as a Southeast Regional Leader, being that I lead all research within the south east region of Texas, followed up on recent reports within the area and organized and led research outings until I moved to Dallas in the Spring of '04.
While I am no longer a regional leader, I am a member of the groups "advisory board" which is made up of senior members of the group that make decisions on where the group is headed as a whole. I enjoy this role, as the group is very important to me and I want to make sure that its best interests are at the heart of all decisions.
What do you think about the growing numbers of women becoming active in this field?
Monica: I think it is great, and I really don't understand why more women are not active.
Have you had to deal with any resistance to your being in this field of research, due to your gender?
Monica: Yes, but not until recently. This question was posed to me 2 years ago at a conference, and at that point I had not really considered it, but it did make me take a really good look around, and more specifically at the roles that some would like to see women play in active "research". There are some individuals who hold very antiquated ideas in regards to women in the field.
How do you deal with this? What advice would you give to another female researcher who is experiencing this?
Monica: I deal with it by ignoring it, when I am in the field (and I admit it is not as often as I want) I am just as focused and dedicated to the research as anyone else there. If you want to think like a caveman, go hang out in a cave, there is no time for that in serious field research. I feel that every member has the potential to contribute great things if trained correctly and given the opportunity - regardless of gender. I would advise other women facing this adversity to cast all negativity to the side, go out and give it their best, you will surprise yourself and others.
Can you give any advice to women who are considering entering this research, but are hesitant.
Monica: Do not hesitate, and do not take any crap. Go out, suck it up and play like "one of the guys" and you will do well. Be sure to keep an open mind, and don't be discouraged if others do not accept your ideas; no one in this field is an expert.
Have you had a sighting? If so please explain
Monica: NO
Does not having a sighting ever discourage you? If so, why? If not, Why?
Monica: No, not in the least. I am actually skeptical of anyone who sees them behind every bush, or claims that evey noise in the dark is one.
What keeps you interested in the research?
Monica: I believe in the possibility of such a creature existing. While I do believe that most sightings are misidentifications, a flash of fur or shadows in the dark don't prove a thing, I do believe that if they are in the N.W., they could be here in the South. It is my own curiosity combined with this possibility that keeps me going.
Do you ever get into the field?
Monica: Not as much as I had in the past. I have family commitments that keep me out of the field more than I care for, but my family will always come before any research. Also, I do not agree with some of the methods used in the field, but I also do not have the time to create my own outings - therefore I choose to remain outside of most current field research.
Do you take witness statements?
Monica: Sometimes
Most researchers have one Report that "Stands Out" in their minds, is there a report that still "stands out" for you?
Monica: They all blend together.
Please tell the readers about yourself. What you would like people to know about you.
Monica: I am in my early 30's, the mother of 3, with a full time job. I enjoy the outdoors (obviously) and adventure.
Do you have any advice for a new researcher?
Monica: Keep an open mind, but remain skeptical.
I would like to thank Monica Rawlins for allowing this interview. This is another researcher I am sure we will hear more from in the future :)
Let's Talk Bigfoot Tonight...
Melissa and Teresa will be interviewing Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy and Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers member Alton Higgins. The show starts at 10:00 EST/9:00 Central and can be found at the link to the right. Please tune in and support great research.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Update on the Arcata, California 40th-Anniversary Patterson/Gimlin Movie Symposium
Special Appearances
Bob Gimlin - Confirmed
Patricia Patterson - Awaiting Confirmation
John Green - Awaiting confirmation
Professor Warren J. Houck
Al Hodgson - Confirmed
Confirmed Speakers
Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Dr. Henner Fahrenbach
Christopher Murphy
M.K. Davis
Don Monroe
Kathy Strain
Al Berry & Ron Moorehead
Autumn Williams
Thom Powell
Jason Valenti
Roger Knights
Speakers awaiting confirmation
Dr. Dmitri Bayanov
Dr. Igor Bourtsev
Dr. Daris Swindler
Dr. John Bindernagel
Thoms Steenburg
Editorial: Are Photos and Films Enough?
There seems to be a plethora of films and photos lately alleging to show images of hairy bipeds known collectively as Sasquatch and Bigfoot and Yeti, and while these are intriguing and interesting, I suspect the vast majority of the subjects in these photos and films are either hoaxes or misidentifications, especially all the videos we see on YouTube. But, I have to wonder, are films and photos enough to prove the existence of hairy bipeds, especially with the fact that for the most part, they are hoaxes or misidentifications? I say they are not enough, because (reluctant as I am to discuss this) it has been 40 years since the Patterson/Gimlin Movie was taken, and it is in dispute because of the controversial nature of Roger Patterson and this individual Bob Heironimus who claimed to be in the suit. But I will not dwell on it because there is no point in rehashing it. In 1967 it was hard to doctor a film or manipulate it; nowadays it can be done with the click of a mouse, through Photoshop and digital video manipulation. It is quite simple nowadays to create a convincing film or photo which can fool some people, but not all, especially sharp-eyed researchers who know digital manipulation when they see it. So, photos and films are not proof, and do not let anyone tell you different. A good film or video MIGHT go a good ways towards proving the existence of hairy bipeds, but the best photos or even National Geographic-quality footage is still not enough for the skeptics ,and sometimes not even for the Bigfoot Community. A body or piece thereof is needed. I will leave you with this quote from Jay Michael which is in the header of my blog: "There are no photos of Bigfoot; there are no videos of Bigfoot. There are ALLEGED photos of Bigfoot; there are ALLEGED videos of Bigfoot."
Editorial: The Johor Hominid Controversy: One Year Later
Nearly 1 year ago, a series of photos was promised to be unveiled on the public, allegedly of the Johor Hominid or Orang Mawas. The photo you see on the right was the "teaser photo" which promised something extraordinary from johorhominid.org. This photo was up at the website for several weeks, until a sharp-eyed French scientist, remembering that these eyes looked quite familiar, like something he had seen before. It turned out he had; it was actually a photo of an actor in costume for a television program on the Australopthecines from a book. Now, there was speculation that the photo was a deliberate hoax from Vincent Chow, but let us examine this a bit closer; supposing Chow and Ang were taken in by this photo and were not aware that it was actually from a book? It is always possible. I am reticent to accuse them of hoaxing, because Rick Noll, who worked with the two gentlemen last Summer, attested to their honesty on the "Sasquatch Experience" the other night. I think that Chow and Ang were deceived by someone who claimed this photo was the real thing. It isn't the first time researchers have been fooled by what they thought was evidence and turned out to be a hoax, and it won't be the last either. I think it is a lesson to those who count something as evidence without examining all parameters more thoroughly, so let's just be careful and more discerning.From Ray Crowe's "Track Record," April 2007
Memorial Plaque at Bluff Creek: The plaque is a bronze one about 16 inches long by 14 inches high and it reads "At this location known as the Patterson site on October 20, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin captured their famous film of a Sasquatch." Memorial donated by S. Fries, M.K. Davis, M. Gross and J. Hiers, of the Bigfoot Research Project. It is a really nice plaque and they will be building a river rock monument to attach the plaque to. Thanks Linda Coil Suchy for the tip.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Information on the "Mississippi Film" from Mike Quast's "Big Footage: A History of Claims for the Sasquatch on Film"
A motoring couple with a child reportedly took a super-8 film of a Sasquatch running on or parallel to a set of railroad tracks. The film was allegedly analyzed by the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, California (results unknown) and was in the possession of California Sasquatch investigators Barbara Ann Slate and Vince Gironda (both now deceased). Daniel Perez of the Center for Bigfoot Studies in Norwalk, California feels the film may be genuine but admits it is hard to make out much detail. In the December '98 issue of Bigfoot Times newsletter, Perez asked Don Keating what he thought of the Mississippi Film. Keating replied, "...I understand it was taken in the Fall of 1977 somewhere near Tupelo, Mississippi by a family who had been picnicing. they saw the creature on the opposite side of a set of railroad tracks. The passenger, apparently the wife, grabbed the 8 mm home movie camera and began filming as they were driving. They did not stop the car because they were afraid that whatever it was would approach them and attack...All i ever saw were still photos...Reportedly, the film has been lost."
Squatch Detective Radio Tonight...
Steve does not have an announced guest for the show, but it should be a good one. The show starts at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central and can be found at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thesquatchdetective As always, please tune in and support great research.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Review: Sasquatch Experience 6-10-07
This was a great show, with the "Springs Sweep Pick" Richard Noll, who discussed such things as the Memorial Day Footage and the controversy surrounding it, The Skookum Cast and the controversy surrounding it, his own research, what he thinks Sasquatch is, the New York Baby footage, his pending TV project with Doug Hajicek and other various topics. It was a wonderful show and a lot of fun, and a true pleasure. Our next program will have Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy member Monica Rawlins, next Sunday at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at the link to the right. We want to thank those who have supported us and listened every week, and we especially want to thank those who voted for Rick Noll to be our guest. As always, please tune in and support great research.
Sasquatch Experience Tonight...
Our guest will be Rick Noll, researcher from Washington State. The show starts at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central and the link can be found at the right. Please tune in and support great research.