Media Article:

Bigfoot Buzz

Column in The First Perspective Newsletter, The Drum

September 21, 2006

with Terence Sakohianisaks Douglas

Sasquatch - What Do We Know Anyway? - Part II

In my article last month, I attempted to encapsulate the available objective evidence proving the existence of a creature known as Sasquatch. The response to that article was very positive, and a number of constructive criticisms were made, two of which I will address within this month's article.

First, after reading the article my lovely wife, who patiently supports my Sasquatch obsession, pointed out that I failed to mention the many examples of alleged Sasquatch vocalizations recorded over the past thirty years; mea culpa. As with my take on the use of hair, feces etc. to isolate DNA, I feel that until a Sasquatch is witnessed making such vocalizations, this type of evidence is not particularly useful. As with DNA, until a Sasquatch is absolutely identified as making such vocalizations, there remains the possibility that such vocalizations are being made by a known animal. A recent discovery by British Columbian Sasquatch researchers Thomas Steenberg and Gerry Mathews emphasize this point quite clearly.

Earlier this year, a number of people within the area surrounding Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia reported unknown vocalizations similar to some of those attributed to the Sasquatch. The researchers were investigating these vocalization reports, hiking through the area of their origin, when the vocalization occurred very close to their location. Running to the location of the creature making these sounds, it was discovered that the sounds were emanating from a plain old coyote; it did not even have two heads or anything else extraordinary! Although the vocalization was an unknown one, it was clearly being made by a known animal.

With this positive identification, so fell a previously important component of objective evidence for the Sasquatch. However, it must strenuously be pointed out that although one alleged Sasquatch vocalization has been positively identified as emanating from a known animal, such a revelation does not necessarily equate into the conclusion that all alleged Sasquatch vocalizations emanate from known animals; such logic is a slippery slope that does not bear support.

Second, a Sasquatch researcher who has been involved for a great many years emailed me to state that I was preaching to the choir. A very good point made by this gentleman was that the majority of Sasquatch "researchers", and I currently include myself in this group, were "armchair researchers" who read about Sasquatch information as opposed to "beating the bushes" looking for evidence. I agree whole heartedly with this assessment as the proliferation of easily accessible information via such mediums as the internet, books, magazines and articles have provided the general public with an opportunity to "research" the Sasquatch from the comfort and safety of home. Meanwhile, a dedicated many continue to "beat the bushes" attempting to get the definitive evidence of the creature's existence.

In contemplating this gentleman's email I was forced to ask myself the question of not only "What do we know anyway", but also "What does it matter?" I will answer this last question at the end of this article. I will now turn the article back to the subject I promised last month, the available subjective evidence supporting the existence of the Sasquatch

Subjective Evidence - First-Hand Reports

To review subjective evidence is those things that require a person's judgment to determine what the evidence represents. Within this category of evidence are the thousands of first-hand reports of Sasquatch sightings, and I believe the oral histories of the First Nations here in North America, and the indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world. First-hand reports of Sasquatch have been present within the historical record for at least one hundred and fifty years. At this point, let's make it clear that the "historical record" refers to the European settlers that came to North America and their present day decedents. Indigenous histories of such creatures go back much longer than that, and will be dealt with later in this article.

There are many examples of early European settlers to North America encountering a "wildman" during their increasing forays into the wilderness. Such examples can be found in the early newspaper reports of the 19th and early 20th centuries. An excellent resource for those interested in reviewing such newspaper accounts is the work done by Sasquatch researcher Scott McLean. Mr. McLean has done an excellent job in compiling such early reports, and at one point had for sale copies of these reports on CD; I highly recommend the purchase of this if they are still available.

Such encounters have continued into the present age, with some of the more "classic" stories being the Albert Ostman, the Ape Canyon incident, William Roe, and the Ruby Creek incident. Due to the constraints of space, and the availability of information elsewhere, it is not possible to go into the details of these or other first-hand reports, and the interested reader is encouraged to go any internet site to read more on these encounters.

For this article, the question to be asked is how reliable are these forms of evidence as proof of the existence of the Sasquatch? In my opinion I believe that first-hand reports are perhaps the best form of available evidence. A caveat on my opinion is that the individuals reporting these encounters must be interviewed in a uniform, meticulous manner to enable such first-hand reports to withstand the scrutiny of the unsympathetic public. In this manner, those first-hand reports that do not pass muster can be relegated to the back row while those that provide excellent evidence can lead the charge to acceptance.

In this manner, although the skeptics can argue that such first-hand reports may be cases of mistaken identity of known animals, hoaxes or even hallucinations, if only one of these first-hand reports collected in a uniform and meticulous manner can be considered as true, then surely the validity of the existence of the Sasquatch must be taken seriously. I believe that there are more than enough first-hand reports collected as noted above to warrant further research into the Sasquatch phenomena.

Subjective Evidence - First Nation Oral Histories

Similar to the first-hand reports are the rich tradition of First Nation oral histories. These oral histories have been generally thought of as "myths", "folk tales" and "legends" created for entertainment purposes or the transmission of societal and cultural values and norms, but not as an accurate record of the First Nation histories. However, within the last ten years such a perception is slowly changing.

Within Canada, the use of First Nation oral histories as suitable evidence within the common law has been accepted since 1997 with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Delgamuukw. Provided that such First Nation oral histories meet certain criteria and tests, these oral histories have been used to provide evidence in a number of cases. If such oral histories are suitable as evidence within the Canadian common law, then if collected correctly and in accordance with the same guidelines can not the same oral histories that relate to Sasquatch be accepted as evidence for its existence?

There is a vast and rich tradition of Sasquatch like creatures within the First Nation oral histories of Canada, and there is no reason to believe that these oral histories are solely based on "myths", "folktales" and "legends" as they are often categorized. Indeed, as has been pointed out to me in an email exchange with Neil Cornell, these oral histories should not be mistaken as absolute fact, but nonetheless within these "legends" lies a core of facts. The issue would then seem to be to record the First Nation oral histories according to the guidelines set out in the Canadian common law, and then determine the core of facts at the root of these oral histories. To my knowledge this has not been done in the past, and is currently a project I am undertaking to be later used in a book on the subject.

Conclusion

The last question I asked previously in this article, "What does it matter?" must now be addressed. In looking back at the recent past in regards to Sasquatch "research", many individuals have devoted large amounts of their time and energy to proving of the existence of the Sasquatch. What have they accomplished when the general public still does not recognize existence of such creatures even though the objective and subjective gathered so far seems to bear out the possibility of such existence?

In my opinion, the earlier generation of Sasquatch researchers, and even today's researchers, will not prove the existence of the Sasquatch to the general public with the evidence that has currently been made available. Unless a body or the live capture of the Sasquatch occurs, the general public will remain blissfully unaware of the creatures possible existence.

Instead, I feel that Sasquatch researchers have expanded, and will continue to expand the consciousness of the general public to accept the possibility of the existence of the Sasquatch. Generally speaking, scientists, and by default most of the public, tend to seek consistency and avoid novelty such as the Sasquatch in their realities. Accordingly, scientists frequently overlook anomalies such as the Sasquatch because such anomalies challenge the existing paradigms until those anomalies become too disruptive to ignore. That, I believe, has been the unintended consequence of Sasquatch research up until this point. While I am limited in space to further engage in Sasquatch philosophy, in a nutshell that is what I believe.

In concluding this months article, I would like to once again thank everyone who replied to my previous articles, especially Bobbie Short who was kind of enough to include a link to my articles on her excellent website Bigfoot Encounters. If anyone has any comments on this article, or has a first-hand report or oral history that they would like to share with me, please contact me via sasquatch1969@hotmail.com. Until my next article, remember that there is more under the heavens than are dreamt of in our mortal philosophies (with apologizes to Shakespeare).

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.