Media Article:

Bigfoot Buzz

Column in The First Perspective Newsletter, The Drum

August 27, 2006

with Terence Sakohianisaks Douglas

Sasquatch - What Do We Know Anyway?

The Types of Evidence

In my conversations with family, friends and acquaintances, the subject of the Sasquatch inevitably gets brought up in our discussions. The overall direction these conversations take may be summed up by the following: "Sure, it is possible that these creatures may exist, but what evidence is there"? I then ramble on about the various film and video footages, the footprints, hair samples etc. However, I have never really spent a few calm minutes outside of a conversation with another person to consider the question of what evidence is there supporting the existence of the Sasquatch?

Before I begin, I would like to clarify that there are two broad types of evidence available, objective evidence and subjective evidence. Objective evidence is those things that do not necessarily involve a person's judgment to determine what the evidence represents e.g. footprints, hair samples, and clear film or video footage.

Subjective evidence is those things that do require a person's judgment to determine what the evidence represents e.g. first-hand reports of sightings of the creature. In addition, I believe that the oral histories of the First Nations here in Canada, and for that matter elsewhere in the world, provide very strong objective evidence of the existence of the Sasquatch.

This month's BigfootBuzz article will briefly set out the types of objective evidence that has been collected over the last half century, and reflects on whether such evidence warrants future consideration of the existence of the Sasquatch. Next month's article will deal with the available subjective evidence and also reflect on whether such evidence warrants future consideration of the existence of the Sasquatch.

Objective Evidence

To the contrary of most people's knowledge, there is quite a bit of objective evidence supporting the existence of Sasquatch. The most famous of these would undoubtedly be the Patterson - Gimli film shot at Bluff Creek, California in October 1967. In this short film sequence of less than a minute, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimli captured on film what appears to be a female Sasquatch, approximately 6'8" tall, bulky, and covered with hair. The creature in the film quickly walks away from the filmmakers but before disappearing from sight, turns to look directly at the camera - (for more details on this film, you can search the internet for a whole slew of information).

This film has been declared a hoax over the years by many people, yet not one person has ever been able to satisfactorily reproduce the same footage by utilizing a person in an "ape costume". Indeed, a number of credible special effects film studios have said that at the time of shooting, 1967, that it would have been difficult to impossible to mimic the creature in the film, including the gait of the creature and the muscle movement seen beneath the hair. In my opinion, this film remains the best possible objective evidence for the existence of Sasquatch.

Since the time of the Patterson - Gimlin film, there have been a number of other film and video footage brought forward claiming to show a Sasquatch. While some are outright fakes and hoaxes, a handful cannot be so easily dismissed but lack the clarity and focus required to absolutely determine that the subject is a Sasquatch; see last month's article on the Norway House film. As such, while the Patterson - Gimli film does present evidence for the future consideration of the Sasquatch, these other films are not very helpful in this regard.

In addition to film and video footage, there are also literally thousands of huge footprints that have been found and cast throughout North America. Through the work of such academics as the late Grove Krantz, and Jeff Meldrum, these footprints have been analyzed and determined to be structurally different from those of humans. The general consensus at this time is that these footprints have distinctly human characteristics in addition to ape-like characteristics. Such footprints, while not conclusive of the existence of the Sasquatch, do certainly point to a phenomena that something is leaving them behind. If it were a hoax whereby people are purposively making these footprints, then it would have to be a well-funded, dedicated, well-organized and hardy group of hoaxers as the footprints have been found all over North America for over 200 hundred years, many in dense inaccessible terrain. The chances of such a group of hoaxers performing such a feat is mind boggling, especially when there is a possibility that no one will find the footprint so left.

A final type of objective evidence is hair and feces samples that have supposedly been left by a Sasquatch. Such evidence has been collected and sent to various laboratories for DNA analyses. While some of the evidence has come back with an identifiable source, e.g. bear, bison, cougar etc., a good many of these samples have not been able to be identified; herein lies the problem. In my opinion, while I tend to find this type of interesting it will not really be useful until such a time as a Sasquatch is captured, studied and appropriately catalogued. When the above samples come back from DNA testing, the statement accompanying them generally reads "From an unknown animal". Although tantalizing, it does not provide any solid evidence for the existence of the Sasquatch, only that it is from an "unknown animal" which could be a Sasquatch or any other type of animal that is not known to science.

Conclusion

While the objective evidence, as briefly outlined here, does not definitely prove the existence of the Sasquatch, it is certainly compelling to warrant further consideration of the question. There is a debate within the Sasquatch community (the researcher and enthusiasts, not the actual creatures), as what will be the best evidence to determine the existence of the Sasquatch. One side believes that the shooting and/or capture of a creature is what is required to prove the existence of the Sasquatch. The other side believes that it is not necessary to shoot and/or capture such a creature, but good solid evidence in the form of a video or photograph should be able to convince the skeptical of the existence of the Sasquatch. Then there are those who do not care about the skeptical and believe in the Sasquatch, including many First Nation and Indigenous peoples of the world.

In next month's article I will outline some of the subjective evidence that has been collected, and discuss the importance of such evidence, and particularly the value of First Nation's oral histories on the matter. In the meantime, if anyone has information regarding the Sasquatch, or has a sighting they would like to share, please email me at sasquatch1969@hotmail.com. See you next month, and remember, sometimes that shadow you see out in the bush is not a deer!

Whether you believe it is myth, spirit, supernatural, or physical, your responses are welcome here. Please email: bigfootbuzz@taiga-communications.com Meegwetch! Ekosi!

Reprinted with permission from Terence Sakohianisaks Douglas

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To view the original article go to: Bigfoot Buzz

Reprinted under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law as educational material without benefit of financial gain.