WHY THERE HAS TO BE A SASQUATCH
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 5th, 2007
With all of the talk here on Cryptomundo about scoftics and what type of Bigfoot witnesses are best, I thought I would pass on this gem to the readers of Cryptomundo.
College professor Alton Higgins, of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy, shared it with me.
As an organization we (the TBRC) are interested in promoting the evaluation of the sasquatch phenomenon from a scientific perspective. This must, of necessity, include the involvement of scientists. Unfortunately, as we know, few scientists are willing to risk reputation and career by openly affiliating themselves with this kind of research.
One scientist who was willing to consider the existence of an undocumented ape in N.A. was Carleton Coon, a man few of us are aware of. Dr. Coon was a member of the National Academy of Science and served as president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in 1961-1962. I’m pasting an interesting little article by Dr. Coon, published after his death, along with some commentary written by Dr. Grover Krantz.
One quote that I liked: “Even before I read John Green’s book, ‘Sasquatch. the Apes Among Us,’ I accepted the Sasquatch’s existence.” – Alton Higgins
WHY THERE HAS TO BE A SASQUATCH
Some people believe in the Sasquatch. Others don’t. Among those that say they don’t are people who have done the most research on them and produced the best evidence. Possibly these researchers associate the work “believe” with theology.
There is nothing theological about a Sasquatch. He is not a god, nor a man. He is an animal.
The word “to believe” comes from the old Teutonic root LUB, from which we also derive LOVE. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first meaning of believe as: “To hold dear, to have confidence in, or to like.” These words have nothing to do with credibility.
To my mind, a reasonable person who has studied the evidence carefully, like John Green, Rene Dahinden, and Grover Krantz, may be expected to have confidence that the animal exists, but they may not hold him dear or like him very much, because his existence surprises or frightens them.
Even before I read John Green’s book, “Sasquatch. the Apes Among Us,” I accepted the Sasquatch’s existence. A year ago, as representative of the Peabody Museum of Harvard, I was sent to a town in New Hampshire just over the Massachusetts border to investigate a sighting.
A man who lived just below the border in Massachusetts had driven his pickup truck, which he had converted into a camper, to a wooded glade along a highway. He stopped there and went to sleep at the wheel, his two young sons likewise snoozing on bunks by a window.
At 11:00 p.m. the man awoke. Something was rocking his vehicle from side to side. An earthquake? He stepped out and was immediately grasped on the left shoulder by a seven foot tall creature covered with light brown or yellowish hair. Its right hand pushed the camper off his running board into the ground. It looked down on him, and stuck out its tongue. The man jumped free, the creature stepped back. The man drove as fast as he could up the highway, the creature following him.
“Step on it dad!” the boys cried, “He’s gaining on us!”
The creature apparently turned off the highway to the right, and then took another right into a so-called Lovers’ Lane, where we later found physical evidence of perhaps what the lane had been named for.
I went there twice. The terrain was a deep mat of fallen white pine needles. Several weeks after the encounter, the prints of what had been going on were still depressed an inch and a half to two inches below the surface of the needles. Fully clothed, I weigh about 168 to 170 pounds, and wear a size 12 shoes. My steppings and crawlings left no marks at all.
The forester of the local police department pointed out what might be called a fanny-print along the tracks at the edge of the lane, as wide as a very fat man’s but as sharp-edged as that of a man both lean and muscular. There were large footprints and small footprints, some pressed over the other, hand prints on edge, as by a karate blow, and what could have been elbow prints and knee prints. A professional photographer took pictures of these prints just after the “sighting,” on my first visit. Plaster casts taken on my third show the outlines, but little more.
Later on, one of the sighter’s sons saw the creature’s face peering into his bedroom below.
Two women also saw this blond Sasquatch, one when he crouched in front of a stone wall, another when he was walking across the highway. Both women refused to be interviewed, and let it be known that they had gone away.
The principal actor and both his sons passed polygraph tests to verify their consistent accounts. The father had never heard of the Sasquatch before, but one of his sons had seen something about it on television.
Several elements in this narrative had been recorded elsewhere, in other encounters, by persons who never heard of our New Hampshire actors and vice versa. Both these encounters took place at night. The animals rocked the vehicle. It touched its human occupant. Its touch was not aggressive, but apparently a clumsy attempt at interaction, what might have been called a pat of affection, or a way of saying: “I’m hungry!” or “I need a drink of water.”
After he had recovered from the first shock of his encounter, the principal actor was in a state of shock, perhaps resembling hypnosis. I know what this means. I was once almost equally pixilated by the unblinking gaze of a lion, although no human being has ever hypnotized me. The fact in the window syndrome is also on record elsewhere. So is the statement that the animal stank nauseously. “He smelled like rotten fish.” That theme-smell is found in many verifiable records of encounters, but not in all of them. After all, some people’s sense of smell is keener than others’ is.
The first report of Sasquatch tracks came from Jasper, Alberta dated 1811, the first recorded sighting was in Maryland in 1838, and in 1851 many persons saw a hairy giant attacking cattle in Arkansas. They could not all have been pixilated, or were they too afraid of ridicule to admit what they had seen, as many viewers are today.
Unfaked footprints are reported every year. (One can usually tell the difference because a man’s weight is not enough to press the phony template down enough, among other things). Sightings verified by investigators are also in the hundreds, and come from almost every state and province of the United States and Canada. At least an equal number are hushed up.
More plausible evidence, which some of the professional disbelievers may believe (in my sense of the word) comes from some hair and blood left behind by a Sasquatch seen bothering cattle on an Indian reservation in Washington. It had torn down fences and even built what seemed to be a sleeping nest out of branches, but had not escaped unscratched.
Professor Stephen I Rosen of the University of Maryland has identified its hair as that of a previously unknown primate–and he has hair on file for most of the living primates of the world. He has given me permission to state that its scale pattern is primate, its pigment dense and black like that of a lowland gorilla, and its internal structure “unusual.” This last refers to the medulla of the hair strand, which is quite variable among the living races of man.
On this substantially impeccable evidence we may be justified to state that a primate other than man, which is either a pongid (ape), or hominid (kind of man) is alive in Washington, even if the hairs did not come off the animal identified as the creator of the local disturbance.
The blood that came with the hair has been examined by a professional in another institution. A newspaper report quotes him as saying that his sample is primate, possible human, but too degraded for further speculation.
Now that we are on relatively stable scientific ground, and while we await other statements from experts in hair and blood analysis, tooth analysis, or the dissection of a cadaver, it seems sound enough to speculate on the zoological classification of our subject.
We are still speaking only of North America. We have reports of many variations in size, but few in shape. Its footprints range from about twelve to eighteen or even twenty inches (30.5, 45.7, 50.8 cm), with allowances for sex and age. For an adult male its footprints come to about 600 square centimetres, or about ninety square inches. With a weight over 500 pounds, that would put about fifty-six pounds per square inch (4kg per cm2) on each footprint, without counting the added pressure from leaping.
When we reckon stature against weight, according to the best estimates, we obtain a ponderal (height-weight) index of forty, as compared to figures of 22 to 24 from such heavy weight “Homines sapientes” as Eskimos and Finns. This makes the Sasquatch’s build more like a gorilla’s than like those of people not too fat to run.
While the feet could be called human, except for those with fewer than five toes, the hands are subhuman. The thumb branches off the palm lower down than in the case of man, and it is relatively short. In a 1971 paper that Grover Krantz gave me, there is a sense of a lesser manual dexterity than most human hands have, but I may be wrong.
Another item that Grover Krantz notes is that the joint on the astragalus where the tibia seems to set the weight of the body onto the arch of the foot lies farther forward than in Homo sapiens in general, and this has also been observed by David Pilbeam in actual Australopithecus foot bones. What we need most at this point is teeth, but these must probably await an autopsy. In recent microscopic studies of tooth enamel, a difference has been found between enamel patterns in apes on the one hand and both Ramapithecus and man on the other. With just one Sasquatch tooth it could be determined whether he is an ape or something closer to a man.
In either case, the fact that he stands and walks erect does not make him close kin. An octopus’ eye is very much like a mammal’s. Both eyes arose through the processes of mutation and selection. More than one primate can have found it advantageous to stand and walk erect. A gibbon can, but we are not descendants of gibbons. David Pilbeam has found at least six kinds of Ramapithecus in Pakistan and neighboring parts of India. In Africa the succession of the ancestors of three human races, one after another, make that continent seem peripheral rather than seminal, but who can tell?
The world is wide. The outlines of the continents have changed. What once were bridges of land are now swirling straits.
How many races, species, genera, and subfamilies even may be represented not only by Sasquatches, but also by the wildmen, so called, of Europe, Asia and Africa? The lady Kapitar of Caucasus who bore children to a local man belonged to a species or race interfertile with modern Homo sapiens. Anyhow, in 1978 interfertility has ceased to be an open-or-shut criterion of species.
It is easier to say what they are not than what they are. They are not Neanderthals. Neanderthals had beaky noses and brains bigger than those of most men alive today. They had fire and flaked sophisticated tools. They were not dropped out of flying saucers. It is unlikely that they are the unaltered descendants of our ancestors.
They are fellow primates. They are smarter than we are in the sense that they can live without modern inventions, in apparently every climate, even deserts, if the latter are within walking distance of mountains and water. It is less costly and easier to find out what they are than it is to dig up our fossil ancestors, and possibly theirs, in lands now torn by war and seething with newfound national pride. If we don’t destroy the atmosphere, it may be they who have the better chance to survive, if it is true that the meek shall inherit the earth.
Oh, yes, how about my title? Two years ago a reporter asked me over the phone why it was “WHY THERE HAS TO BE A SASQUATCH.” I really don’t know. It seemed like a good eye-catcher, and I could fill in the reason later. So I told him, “With the world in the mess it’s in, we need a Sasquatch to take our minds off our troubles.” This was both egocentric and anthropocentric. Today we might switch it to: “WHY DOES THE SASQUATCH NEED US?” or “WHY DO THERE HAVE TO BE PEOPLE?”
References Cited
Green, John 1978. Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Saanichton: Cheam Publishing and Hancock House Publishers.
Krantz, Grover 1971. Sasquatch Handprints. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 5 (2): 145-151. – Carleton S. Coon
Carleton Coon was a major contributor to the study of human evolution from the late 1930s until his death in 1981. He was also among the first of the ‘established’ scientists to openly discuss the possibility of living hominids other than our own species. Coon was never very much afraid of controversy; neither did he go out specifically looking for it. His anthropological works range the full gamut from ‘respectable’ to what some thought to be ‘outrageous’. With Sasquatch he followed his normal pattern of studying what was of interest and reporting whatever conclusions he found. Coon never did extensive research into the subject of unverified hominoids, but he kept an open mind on it and was happy to learn about what others were doing. This paper is perhaps the only formal presentation of his views at any length. Here he toys with various possible views as to Sasquatch’s relation to humans, and rules out only one–that they represent surviving Neanderthals. While Coon refers to Ramapithecus as a definite hominid, the present consensus of expert opinion would now class it as a pongid. This, of course, has no direct bearing on the Sasquatch problem and should not detract from his comments here. (G.S. Krantz) – Grover Krantz
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
well, what to make of all that? The interesting parts for me are the sighting report (anyone know if the photo’s and casts actually exist?), and, in particular, the “With the world in the mess it’s in, we need a Sasquatch to take our minds off our troubles.”
I think, in general, that there is something to that idea- interest in the ‘unexplained’, the ‘paranormal’ (dare i say, the ‘religious’ as well? oh yes, seems i do..) probably does provide some kind of escape from more immediate realities (if not the opium of the people, at least the nice cool beer of the people). It is a well known anthropological/psychological fact that every group creates its own beasties (which is to make no judgement about whether any of them are based in fact)- there does seem to be some universal need there.
But i think it might also be more complex than that. One thing in particular I have noticed since starting to read this site is how the interest in cryptozoological beasties seems bound up in some way, for many of us, with a wider concern in environmental and conservation issues.
I cant help but feel that at least part of the attraction (not necessarily the main, or even a conscious, reason) of cryptozoology is that we feel that somehow if we were to prove the existence of BF, or a giant sea-serpent, or whatever that this might force us to take more care of the environment. (I think this may be most clear in the whole sylvanic episode, where i think the whole BF claim was made up to try and aid the argument that the local wilderness and wildlife should be better protected- a thoroughly misguided attempt, but perhaps for the best of reasons).
For others I get the feeling that cryptozoology, and the discovery of new species has somewhat of a different attraction- they feel that discovering new species (or finding those thought to have become extinct) provides some kind of reassurance that we aren’t messing things up quite as badly as some people suggest.
None of this has any bearing on whether BF et al actually exist, but I do think the psychology of belief is a very interesting topic.
And i’ve always wondered how the word ‘fanny’ came to have such dramatically different meanings in English and American… 😉
Good morning Cryptos…
Craig…Thank you for the excellent commentary. Seems those ole folks knew more than we give them credit for…JMHO
live and let live…
Ole bub and the dawgs
The name rang a bell. But I wouldn’t have identified him with this topic.
This was what I found most interesting of a lot of interesting comments:
“They are fellow primates. They are smarter than we are in the sense that they can live without modern inventions, in apparently every climate, even deserts, if the latter are within walking distance of mountains and water. It is less costly and easier to find out what they are than it is to dig up our fossil ancestors, and possibly theirs, in lands now torn by war and seething with newfound national pride.”
Those are thoughts ahead of their time, and are relevant to much talk going on here, particularly the Desert Wrangle on the “truck drivers” thread and the apparent belief of skeptics that there’s nothing to go on and searching isn’t worth doing.
Another instructive point here, spurred by a few other of Coon’s more interesting comments. Science is almost perfect. Scientists aren’t. And they are the ones who have to practice science. They are emotional; they jump to conclusions; they have blinders; they hold out hope; and, fortunately, they can get damned impatient when something is really, really obvious to them, and to almost (it seems) no one else.
And then there’s this:
“I went there twice. The terrain was a deep mat of fallen white pine needles. Several weeks after the encounter, the prints of what had been going on were still depressed an inch and a half to two inches below the surface of the needles. Fully clothed, I weigh about 168 to 170 pounds, and wear a size 12 shoes. My steppings and crawlings left no marks at all.
The forester of the local police department pointed out what might be called a fanny-print along the tracks at the edge of the lane, as wide as a very fat man’s but as sharp-edged as that of a man both lean and muscular. There were large footprints and small footprints, some pressed over the other, hand prints on edge, as by a karate blow, and what could have been elbow prints and knee prints. A professional photographer took pictures of these prints just after the “sighting,” on my first visit. Plaster casts taken on my third show the outlines, but little more.”
A Proto-Skookum Cast! And a really big opportunity missed. If people didn’t just go naaaaaaaah to this – like I did with those old prints I found in the California Siskiyou with my girlfriend in 1986 – we’d know by now.
I’m not sure I entirely agree with the assessment that religion is there simply because we need to believe. I’ll concede that there is a need for that, but most of us who do believe do so because we have found it credible. But I also don’t want to start any debates–just giving my own point of view.
As far as bigfoot is concerned I definitely don’t believe he will solve any specific beliefs in origins if and when he is found. I would think that that argument would have been settled (in more than just our personal opinions) by now.
Cryptids represent a sort of last frontier to us. Finding one will aid science of course, but more than that it spurs the sense of adventure in us. For most of us, it is the great adventure that excites our imagination and it is something we can take part in from the comfort of our homes through commenting on websites, reading, or just thinking about the possibilities. When we do venture out into the woods and fields (or seas or lakes), it give us a greater appreciation of nature, however we may conceive of nature’s origins.
We don’t need bigfoot, nor does he need us. But he adds to our lives an inestimable sense of wonder that many of us have lost in adulthood because of the pressures society has places on us. He represents that “great unredeemed wilderness” Muir spoke of. He holds out the promise of freedom that Thoreau wrote about.
In many ways, he has become the icon of rugged hope that modern man conveys on known creatures like the wolf or the grizzly; only bigfoot brings us also the sense of mystery.
Perhaps that is why we pursue him; hoping to catch him and yet secretly hoping we never do.
Why There Has To Be A Sasquatch? Answer: Because Sasquatch are real! Have I ever seen one? No. Then how can I be so sure? Well, it is all the strange things I have come across while hunting elk in Washington State, that has me convinced. So for me it is more than just wishful thinking.
Elk are large animals and can be very difficult to find. As an elk hunter I search for signs of elk and find them. The signs elk leave behind. So even though I may not see an elk, I know there has to be elk. And there are. Well, I have also come across what I believe to be Sasquatch sign. Often while hunting. As a matter of fact, it seems to be an easy task where I have hunted. So there must be many Sasquatch? I could relate many of my finds, but only this one for now. Far from any roads I came upon a large pile of rocks that seemed out of place. It was very foggy that evening and I just had to climb to the top of the rockpile. I will never forget what I found. A bed made of pine branches. At first I thought some fellow human engineered this. Until I discovered that the pine branches were freshly torn from the tree! Some twice as thick as my thumb. I had expected to see saw marks! Darkness was approaching and I realized that I was in someones home.
I have come across so much fresh Sasquatch sign, that I actually expect to see one eventually while hunting. I carry a big gun and I’m not exactly sure what I will do when and if that day comes? Mentally I am ready to react one way or another. I mean since I am expecting this, I will not freeze and panic. The man in me says shoot and resolve this matter once and for all! The Chicken in me says I might not make it out of the woods alive! My guess is that I will take aim at Sasquatch, but not pull the trigger. I could have killed, but choosing not to just seems right.
cabochris –
“The man in me says shoot and resolve this matter once and for all! The Chicken in me says I might not make it out of the woods alive!”
Nicely put! I have always maintained that proof is most likely to come by way of a hunter rather than a researcher. (I also think these creatures bury their dead.)
But that’s a thought eh? These are supposedly social creatures presumably with family nearby…
What would happen to a lone hunter that took the shot?
How to go about a study of seasoned hunters that have died under unusual conditions or disappeared entirely?
Yeah, it’s speculation but it’s kind of fun to think about. Indoors. In the city…
Carleton Coon drew fire from the liberal establishment before the days of Political correctness with the observation that the black african was 30000 yrs behind the white man from an evolutionary standpoint, all hell broke loose with that remark and Dr Coon fell out of favor.
hey craig very interesting new article about sasquatch, i agree with everyone above replys as well. thanks bill 🙂
It is all very interesting, and certainly he’s describing one of the most intriguing sighting reports east of the Rockies.
And yet … I can’t get away from thinking that sasquatch is only going to be found in an area that can conceal a breeding population of hundreds, so remote that there have been no accidental kills and sufficiently fertile as habitat that the animals may migrate within it, but never out of it through more human-infested areas That still leaves me with the Pacific Northwest.
I will bet the first taker $100 even money that, if a peer-reviewed formal description of sasquatch (which will require a holotype specimen: a whole sasquatch or a meaningful piece of one) is ever published in SCIENCE or NATURE (given the staggering importance of the find, I can’t imagine it would be published anywhere else), the specimen will have come out of the PNW.
Just one guy’s opinion.
I like the fact that he was able to separate science and theology. It is rare to find anyone who is able to do that. I agree with him that belief doesn’t have a place in true science. I also appreciate that he explains the origin of the word belief. I don’t just believe sasquatch exists, I know they do. Even before I began looking into the evidence others found, it just made sense to me that there would be just such a creature around.
When I read of microscopic comparisons there usually are included labeled photographs demonstrating the conclusions, or at least quality illustrations, allowing the reader to consider them. Where are the hairs, or evidence of them, not simply a second-hand report of someone’s opinion that the hairs existed and didn’t match anything in that person’s file or realm of knowledge? Let a neutral person re-examine the hairs mixed with known hairs against an encyclopedic master-list of hairs in a controlled experiment. I remember rumors from junior highschool that’s how science struggles against belief. And where is that giant rock bed? Is it a roc’s nest, or part of an elk-slaying beanstalk story? Why hasn’t it become an attraction along that bloody route? There would be hair samples among other evidence all around. Or do they unmake their beds everyday? This mocker of human hunters must exist, because it’s rare I’ll ever see one, but unless it exists I’ll never see one.
Mattbille- I’m entirely with you on the PNW angle.
and
Rillo777, I thought that was very eloquently put.
Rillo777: I agree with things-in-the-woods. Nice job.
It’s funny indeed the way we chalk stuff up to “quaint Indian legend,” as if the world could never surprise us like that. I note how many come to cryptozoology by way of the paranormal and the supernatural. I’ve never been interested in science fiction, really (and not that much in fiction). The animal world, just the way it is, has been generating wonder in my life for over four decades. Like shumway10973, I just see the the sasquatch making eminent sense, just as an animal, albeit a pretty amazing one. (Considering man among them, I sometimes think of the sasquatch as a sort of “median ape,” combining characteristics of all, with the others more or less specialists. Of course if the sas’s athleticism and predatory capabilities are anything like what’s reported, that’s pretty damned amazing indeed.)
cabochris: One thing that I think gives the skeptical side of this issue problems is that they don’t see your view – as I do – as very likely the prevailing one among hunters. Skeptics have to arrange that bigfoot and nimrod never meet. They do, frequently.
Remus: all that stuff that supposedly “has never” happened with the sasquatch has – as you note – never been REPORTED. If people are afraid to report even seeing one, or finding tracks, you know the more unlikely stuff they aren’t going to be inclined to blatt about. And first you have to get out of the woods.
MattBille: I think there may be more than one population concentration. This seems an animal that finds cracks, and inhabits them, remarkably well. And of course the most intensive searching right now isn’t going on in the PNW, which might tip the scales a bit.
Might. Because our continent has lots of cracks.