Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

11 Responses to “Autumn Williams on Coast to Coast Tonight”

1. oregonbigfoot responds: July 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

   Craig – I don’t think I’ll be on simultaneously with Standing. In fact, I requested that they don’t call me until he’s finished. With the recent controversy surrounding him, I don’t want people to assume that I’m involved with anything he’s doing. I’m NOT. In fact, he emailed me a couple of years back about the Sylvanic stuff and I thought, “Hmm. Someone’s doing a Blair Witch style Bigfoot mockumentary.” When word came about that it was being billed as “real footage”, I couldn’t believe it.

   Autumn

2. bill green responds: July 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

   hey autumn -oregon bigfoot- im sure you will do a wonderful interview about oregon sasquatch research etc on coasttocoastam i will be listing to it hopefully. i hope you talk about your oregon bigfoot documentarys in that interview & resent sasquatch activity. good evening . bill green 🙂

3. silvereagle responds: July 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm

   Since nobody else has filed their report, then I will. Autumn Williams puts the first nail in the coffin, on Gigantopithicus Blackii being the ancestor of the modern Bigfoot. Her simple explanation, was that modern Bigfoot sightings describe Bigfoot as having very human facial expressions, as opposed to the facial expressions of a big dumb monkey or gorilla. Giganto was described by her as a big dumb monkey.

   That works for me. Meldrum will probably start losing a little sleep over this one, since that is one of his pet theories in his just released book. Biscardi and Moneymaker publicly appear to both be in the same camp.

4. MultipleEncounters responds: July 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am

   Autumn you did great. I had to put toothpicks between one eyelid but I stayed up for the whole interview.

   Someday soon we will get to the truth about these creatures. 🙂

5. oregonbigfoot responds: July 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am

   I wondered if anyone was going to pick up on that. The Giganto thing has been bothering me for a long time. Now, I know that folks in bigfoot research are desperate for this phenomenon to achieve some sort of recognition/validity from the scientific community. But it’s one thing to say, “A bipedal creature the SIZE of bigfoot, known as Gigantipithecus, once existed, so it’s physically POSSIBLE for something like a Sasquatch to exist.” It’s quite another thing to say that Bigfoot IS Gigantopithecus.

   The descriptions I have received from long-term witnesses over the years, all across the country, detail a “creature” (for lack of a better term) whose mannerisms and intelligence mimic something much closer to a hairy, aboriginal human than a bipedal gorilla. But LTWs aside, I’ll stress the point to folks out there again… how many times are incidental witnesses heard pointing out how HUMANLIKE these creature’s facial expressions are? Not just the features… the EXPRESSIONS.

   The popular chain of thought seems to go something like this: Gigantopithecus was akin to a huge bipedal gorilla. It’s the closest thing to a bigfoot that we’ve got in the fossil record, so let’s use it as a potential “explanation” for the existence of bigfoot for those who say a bipedal ape can’t exist. The next thing you know, everyone who can pronounce it is using the catch-phrase “Gigantopithecus Blacki” in relation to bigfoot (and sounding very serious and scientific when they do so) and it becomes a given that THAT’S what bigfoot IS. Trouble is, we have no evidence that bigfoot has anything to do with Giganto, and in the meantime it’s perpetuating this idea that these creatures are big, dumb, bipedal apes. OK, so even if they’re “relatively intelligent” for an ape, they’re still apes, right? Huh? Whatever happened to the word THEORY in all of this?

   After 17 years of research in this field, working with people who have had extensive experiences with these creatures, one of the things that stands out is this: THEY LOOK AND ACT LIKE BIG, HAIRY, CREEPY PEOPLE.

   Anthropomorphism on the part of witnesses? It’s a convenient way to dismiss it. But in order for me to ignore the prevalence of what these witnesses tell me, I’d have to conclude that each witness just happens to be anthropomorphizing these creatures in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

   We’ve had pretty crappy luck over the last 50 years of trying to prove that these things exist. Could it be that we’re simply underestimating them?

   If you head out into the woods to search for a big, dumb monkey walking on two legs, and you grabbed your bag full of big, dumb monkey tracking and surveillance tools, how much use would those tools be if it turns out that it’s not a big, dumb monkey that you’re tracking at all? What if, instead, you’d have grabbed your bag marked ‘Big Hairy Aboriginal Humanlike Creature Whose Intelligence and Wilderness Prowess Has Allowed Them to Avoid Us Intentionally’?

   What if all of the researchers in the woods who are running around trying to find The-Big-Dumb-Monkey-Related-To-Gigantopithecus aren’t having any luck because THAT bigfoot DOESN’T EXIST?

   Just some food for thought. 🙂

   Autumn

6. sasquatch responds: July 30th, 2007 at 11:52 pm

   Who says they’re dumb? Chimps and gorillas aren’t dumb, so why would a Sasquatch be if it were Gigantopithecus? I thought it was interesting that Ms. Williams started off saying that men usually respond aggressively and start shooting and stuff when bigfoot is around so; then there is no trust from the bigfoot etc. And later when the open lines showed up, a young man called in and said he lived with his mother in a trailer and when they started hearing (Presumed) bigfoot screams SHE whipped out her pistol and started shooting up into the trees! That was classic- So much for the gentle trusting female response- I laughed pretty hard. Anyone else catch that?

7. silvereagle responds: July 31st, 2007 at 11:37 am

   sasquatch: How easy is it to catch a chimp in chimp country? How easy is it to take a picture of a chimp in chimp country? Most will agree that it can be done by both amateurs and experts.

   Now, how easy is it to catch a bigfoot in bigfoot country? And how easy is it to take a picture of a bigfoot in bigfoot country? Somewhere between virtually to nearly impossible, will likely be the general consensus. So what is the most likely difference? Relative intelligence to man, would be a pretty good answer on that one. Intelligence is relative.

   Although Autumn may have been referring more to herself, than most other women on her explanation as to why women don’t normally go for a gun. In my field experience, most men that are not researchers, do in fact go for a gun when they hear something that scares the living daylights out of them. Apparently some women go for guns as well, based on your experience. But most women from my experience, are afraid of guns, and prefer to flee the situation and the solution of choice for resolving their fears.

   On the August 2004, Washington BFRO expedition, it was explained to me like this. Researchers are just trying to convince the public that Bigfoot are real animals, in order to secure those lucrative government research grants. They do not want to attempt anything such as convincing the public that they are say, paranormal intelligent people, because then the public will ridicule them and there will be no lucrative government research grants. So in a sense, bigfoot research as conducted by some, is a scam based on a lie. Unfortunately, they suck in the naive and most of the inexperienced, into believing that lie.

   Once again, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

8. MultipleEncounters responds: July 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm

   Women are clearly the more nurturing of our species, but that is not always the rule. Men are the more aggressive, but that is not always the rule either. There are many exceptions to both and a lot of in-between. There are some pretty loud scary women out there that may turn off the biggest meanest bigfoot. There are some pretty sensitive guys out there too, who may do just the opposite.

   Women have a way of dealing with some things that is different from men, and vice-versa. Assessing these differences in detail? I won’t even try to recall but I know there have been studies. Once again, there are always exceptions.

   I suspect sasquatch are generally less threatened by women overall, but again I doubt this is the rule. Most (not all) women have the tools however, to present themselves as less threatening. Maybe different levels of testosterone are being picked up in our pheromones? Maybe a predatory signal of some sort, is sent out by those who are pursuing the creature for ulterior reasons (from the bigfoot’s point of view). Of course during my last two visual encounters, I too was hunting and carrying a rifle, and I was approached this last time. So who knows? I do know I wasn’t hunting bigfoot though. I suspect we send out many signals (physical and cognitive) that we are not aware of and that may be the uncontrollable variable for everyone.

   There have been several women who have been more successful then men at researching primates, and this is where we find ourselves drawing a strong distinction to the Goodall/Fossey technique. Of course the idea for this research method came from a man. 😉 I don’t think it ‘requires’ being a woman to be a good researcher either, but, they may indeed have an ‘edge’ on men in some key areas. I am certain there are some women who make terrible researchers, same as some men make terrible, say, hunters. Being timid when in bigfoot’s territory may be a key, and this is something I try to portray the best I can when I am out there alone. The nurturing side of some women, over the long term, may be a trait that sasquatch is less threatened by.

   Still the opportunity is equal for both sexes. How we utilize our personal skills in the field, our personality makeup, our resources, various physical factors, whether a bf is even in the area, etc, all combine to determine what kind of researcher a person becomes.

   Autumn has taken in tons of knowledge over the years from her interviews and visits. She sees a path (just as I see my path), that she is taking that provides her with valuable insights to these creatures. Many others have acquired such varied insights, they may be different in many ways plus they will overlap in others. But it is these small connections we decipher that bring us closer to the truth. Being open minded crucial in this path. In the end, it is those who are trying to find ways of extending that proverbial ‘olive branch’ out to these creatures who may make the ultimate contact.

   David Rodriguez
   Springfield, Oregon

9. oregonbigfoot responds: July 31st, 2007 at 4:33 pm

   The “big, dumb monkey” statement was an overstatment to get a point across. Apparently, I didn’t do so well. That’s what happens when you try to do a major radio interview on no sleep thanks to your teething 7 month old.

   Despite the semantics, the point that I’m trying to get across is that I think their intelligence is being underestimated. It’s one thing for an armchair researcher to underestimate them… but as a field researcher, that’s a mistake that can leave you dead in the water before you even begin. I can’t afford to make those kind of assumptions. Time and money to research are too scarce to be wasted on heading into the field with preconceived notions that might limit my success. That’s why I recommend that other field researchers broaden their minds a bit as well. The fact is that we don’t know WHAT we’re dealing with, but I do know that it’s far wiser to overestimate their intelligence and abilities than underestimate them.

   In other words: you might be able to fool a chimp or gorilla… but what if you CAN’T fool a bigfoot? How many times has it been tried and failed? And how might you then adapt your research techniques to allow for the level of intelligence that your quarry possesses?

   As for the lady who grabbed a gun, it happens. But not that often. She was a woman alone with a child in a rural area. THAT was my point. Again, just because THAT bigfoot chose THAT woman who happened to grab a gun, it doesn’t negate the point I was trying to make… that bigfoots seem to be drawn to women and children in rural areas, and that women are FAR LESS LIKELY to react the way most men do to a fear situation.

   I didn’t figure these opinions/ideas I was throwing out there would be very popular. But if someone asks me what I’ve learned in 17 years of research, I’m going to tell them. And this is coming from someone with a perspective that’s rather unique, having been a long-term witness myself; someone who IS open-minded and doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater on a regular basis; someone who LISTENS to eyewitnesses rather than ridiculing them as soon as they say something that doesn’t jibe with their preconceived notions about what bigfoot is; someone who is open-minded yet skeptical about ALL aspects of the bigfoot phenomenon, including the Giganto theory.

   You can take it for what it’s worth to you. 🙂

10. sasquatch responds: August 1st, 2007 at 12:15 am

    I don’t know what it is either, but it could be “Giganto”. I don’t care who proves it’s existence, man or woman. Hopefully all of your experience will pay off, I’d love it. I say: good luck to all bigfoot chasers, even Biscardi, well maybe not ones who align themselves with obvious charlatans like Ivan Marx etc. Best wishes!

11. easternbigfoot2 responds: September 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    Hey Autumn, I agree with you all the way! Giganto does fit descriptions, but not the reported intelligence of sasquatches. No, we don’t know how intelligent giganto was, but using orangs, gorillas and chimps, the sasquatch seems more akin to early man.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|