The Chronicle

In Search of ’Squatch

Posted: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:15 pm

    ELBE — He stands 9 feet tall with stringy brown fur all over his body and glowing red eyes, and if he truly does exist, he probably lives in a forest near you.

The ape-like beast known as Sasquatch is mere legend to skeptics, but to members of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, he is a legitimate scientific conundrum. The group regularly scours areas in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and other wooded parts of the state in search of “squatches” — that’s right — plural Sasquatch.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

30 comments:

    A subscription service is required to post comments.

  • blobsquatch11 posted at 6:04 pm on Mon, Aug 9, 2010.

    blobsquatch11 Posts: 1

    May I first state that I am not desputing any evidence so-far collected supporting the existance of such a creature. Having said this, I will now point out that nomatter how much evidence is collected, without a live or dead creature in captivity, there is nothing to compare said evidence to inorder to prove what you have found as evidence, to be evidence of what you believe it to be.

     
  • HeavyHemi posted at 8:00 pm on Wed, Feb 17, 2010.

    HeavyHemi Posts: 14

    Well now, we can see just what kind of person you are timsan. That was a dishonest 'device' you just used. I don't believe you honestly reciprocated on any issue you were questioned on. You also consistently mis-characterized what others posted. Very disappointing.

     
  • timsan posted at 7:57 pm on Sat, Feb 6, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    Uh, no you didn't, Heavy. When you said you weren't being judgmental by comparing squatch with other phenomenon (all of which are metaphysical) and that was just a 'device', I asked you to elaborate on your device and you declined. That is an unanswered question.

     
  • timsan posted at 9:22 pm on Fri, Feb 5, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    Rain, when someone claims that 'you cannot hike anywhere in the PNW without seeing signs of humans / there is no wilderness anymore', then one is claiming knowledge of the whole of the PNW. Do you really believe one cannot hike in the PNW and see no one and nothing man-made for days and weeks?

    Heavy, In case you haven't noticed, I have 3 people to deal with here. It was cinebarbarian who said he visited my links and claimed nothing credible or scientific and that's the reason for my comment 'to say that there is no evidence is narrow-minded.' I never claimed it was you.

    I compared the sasquatch mystery to UFOs and quarks to make specific points about nature of inquiry, the absense of tangible evidence, etc. I am not equating the belief in UFOs (due to mathematical probablity) or the discovery of quarks (after their postulation) to anything related to Bigfoot. They are simply facts which might come to bear as someone considers the scientific method and what counts as evidence or not.

    But thanks for your words of wisdom ("it's not proof just cause a lot of folks believe it"), your allegorical device (Bigfoots occupies the 'same space' as UFOs), and your sharp analysis of those casts in the story (look flat, weird toes, etc).

    Thanks for the edumacation fellas!

     
  • HeavyHemi posted at 7:03 pm on Fri, Feb 5, 2010.

    HeavyHemi Posts: 14

    Timsan, I think it would be helpful if you identified who you're insulting. :)

    Anyhow, I don't see were you answered my question on the casts. I answered yours, how about reciprocating?

     
  • timsan posted at 4:31 am on Fri, Feb 5, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    The height of hypocrisy. Was I telling you 'there is nothing credible or scientifc'? All I argued for was the existence of some facts which you apparently cannot abide. If your position is that only a body will prove they exist, that is your prerogative, but what constitutes proof is not the issue. We are discussing what constitutes evidence.

    You cannot simply deny the existence of all the other physical evidence (not proof) from all over the world which has accumulated steadily in modern times. I provided two links which you summarily dismissed! This is where you disallow others to believe - in evidence. And then on top of it, I am the one making personal attacks and should be a politician. Very rich indeed!

     
  • HeavyHemi posted at 2:07 am on Fri, Feb 5, 2010.

    HeavyHemi Posts: 14

    Me: Well lets deconstruct timsan again....sigh...

    Timsan "I didn't say that you had said 'no evidence'".

    Me: Yes indeed you did and you said I was narrow minded. Were you referring to someone else?

    Timsan: "To say there is no evidence for UFOs, Sasquatch, etc. is extremely narrow-minded. If one dismisses ALL of the personal narratives, then you might as well be arguing against the existence of God."

    Timsan: "If you did not mean to appear judgmental, could you please explain the purpose of your allegorical device? Spell it out for me."

    Me: I'm not going to defend your opinion I was judgmental. That's your job.

    Timsan. "I would never judge the phenomenon by looking at one example of casts in the newspaper.

    Me: I was commenting SOLELY on the casts not the Bigfoot phenomena . Don't take this personally but you have very bad habit of making sweeping assumptions well beyond what was actually posted.

    Timsan: "I also wouldn't judge it by other 'widespread phenomena' just because they're both widespread. These are basic errors of logic"

    Me: Well then you've more or less refuted your entire point of bringing up, quarks, UFO's and other phenomena. It would be extremely helpful if you would maintain some sort of consistency of logic.

    Timsana; I understand you think the casts don't look genuine. Is there any particular reason why you think so? Please provide specific evidence and avoid the allegorical devices if you don't mind...

    Me: I was crystal clear in my original comment. Here it is again:
    "Those casts in my opinion, are obviously fakes. Feet are not board flat and something of that size (given the curious oddity of the detailed toes) would leave a more defined 3D impression.
    Do you have an opinion of the casts or not. If so, what is it. Thanks.,

     
  • rainnsurf posted at 4:12 pm on Thu, Feb 4, 2010.

    rainnsurf Posts: 10

    I guess I have to agree with Cinebarbarian on this one. It would be awesome to find one but given the fact that there is no dead one's head stuffed and mounted on the wall of any of our local taverns, and given the sheer quantity of armed outdoorsmen trapsing through the woods each year, I just can't deem it reasonable to believe in this creature. But hey, keep visiting us BFRO and bring your money with you. By the way Timsan, when you criticize another's logic, it's better if you don't commit a fallacy yourself. You committed a straw man fallacy. You argued that I claimed personal knowledge of the enter PNW. I did no such thing, but you did a great job of arguing against something I didn't say. I did however claim that all of the PNW is or has been explored. That sir is a fact and as been for several decades now.

     
  • Cinebarbarian posted at 9:34 pm on Wed, Feb 3, 2010.

    Cinebarbarian Posts: 176

    All your personal attacks have still done nothing to bolster up any physical proof.
    Yes you have managed to derail the conversation from the lack of proof to making fun of folks who point out the lack of proof. You really should be running for an office somewhere; your pretty good at this!
    I've seen the websites before and others like it and have also done a lot of reading over the years on the subject; not just in 24 hours but thanks for thinking I can read faster than Data on STNG. Each culture has it's own "boogie man" and our local cultures are no different. Those images get burned into our minds at a young age.
    Do honest God fearing people believe they saw one? Absolutely! No question about it. Never said they were telling a tall tail or any sort of fabrication. Lots of good honest people believe in something that is in the end is just not true. The subject of religion comes to mind. If all the Christians are right then the Hindus are wrong and vise versa. Never said either group was bad, just that one is wrong. (Can't believe I opened that can of worms).
    Believe what you wish and have fun with it. Just allow others to not believe with the same respect. The world needs big foot infidels too you know. And like I said, show me the body, DNA (besides the possum blood mixed with bear hair in Georgia or the "Inclusive DNA hair" which turned out to be fake fur) or other tangible indigenous body component and I'll buy you a dinner while I dine on cold crow. In fact I would absolutely LOVE to be wrong about this and experience the thrill of seeing a lost creature from the fog of time come to life for the world to see.
    I hope to be proven wrong some day. Until then, quoting stacks of books that quote each other or fruitless sightings without physical proof does not add up to proving anything but the absence of the animal. Habitués Corpus. Not Habitués stories.

    PS. that's my last word on the subject. Too much going on in the world to argue on the internet over the absence of a species...

     
  • timsan posted at 8:01 pm on Wed, Feb 3, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    Please don't take all of my comments personally, heavy. I didn't say that you had said 'no evidence'. Try 20 centuries..

    If you did not mean to appear judgmental, could you please explain the purpose of your allegorical device? Spell it out for me.

    I related the issue of the discovery/recognition of quarks to suggest that even laboratory scientists can understand something (by the way it affects other known particles) before they actually see this unknown something themselves. This fact (it's really not an argument) does not support the existence of Bigfoot nor was it meant to. In the same way, I could also use the now very well-accepted argument (mathematical probabillity) in favor of extra-terrestrial life to support the possibility of UFOs. Does it prove UFOs? No. Is it evidence? No. It's just a fact for some people who may begin to think that IF extra-terrestrials exist then they MAY be able to space-travel as we do (or even much better than we do).

    I understand you think the casts don't look genuine. Is there any particular reason why you think so? Please provide specific evidence and avoid the allegorical devices if you don't mind...

     
  • bedrock posted at 1:44 pm on Wed, Feb 3, 2010.

    bedrock Posts: 3

    The prints, allegedly, are from tracks made by an individual called Cripplefoot and found in the snow by a local butcher near a Bossburg, Wash., garbage dump in 1969. Krantz donated the casts to the museum in 1970.

    Why is he holding them in the picture?

     
  • bedrock posted at 11:36 am on Wed, Feb 3, 2010.

    bedrock Posts: 3

    I think it would be nice if the B.F.R.O. would start to focus more on the investigators and people in the organization that have got and collected evidence and stuff like video footage and pictures.
    There are a couple investigators that out way all others and have had multiple sightings and have obtained very good pictures and a number of videos, but these have not been given the credit nor the recognition they deserve.

     
  • bedrock posted at 11:27 am on Wed, Feb 3, 2010.

    bedrock Posts: 3

    Why is he holding the casts from the criple?

     
  • HeavyHemi posted at 10:59 pm on Tue, Feb 2, 2010.

    HeavyHemi Posts: 14

    Oops 200 centuries not 200 hundred centuries,,,now that would be a bit too far back. Look up Eratosthenes..re: flat Earth...

     
  • HeavyHemi posted at 10:52 pm on Tue, Feb 2, 2010.

    HeavyHemi Posts: 14

    Sigh...lets examine your reply

    I would never judge the phenomenon by looking at one example of casts in the newspaper. I also wouldn't judge it by other 'widespread phenomena' just because they're both widespread. These are basic errors of logic.


    >>>>>


    I wasn't judging just using a simple allegorical device.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    To say there is no evidence for UFOs, Sasquatch, etc. is extremely narrow-minded. If one dismisses ALL of the personal narratives, then you might as well be arguing against the existence of God.


    >>>>>>

    I did not say there was "no evidence". That is not an accurate claim at all. I merely noted the FACTS cited on a web cite you vouched for was quite weak on 'facts' supporting the existence of Bigfoot. And what did exist the claims were exaggerated.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Just remember that not long ago folks believed in a flat earth, didn't know about gravity, etc. and a lot of other stuff we take for granted nowadays. What else don't we know? What will be the next big "discovery"? Or will it simply be an official "recognition"? Scientists suspected the existence of quarks long before they actually 'observed' them. Now quarks are considered fact.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Uh no, actually the earth being a sphere was established over 200 hundred centuries ago and except for fringe groups there was not a belief in the 'flat Earth.
    Now this is interesting that you're engaging in the same 'logical fallacy' by citing quarks and gravity 'other things we don't know' which have nothing to do with whether or not Bigfoot exists. Now, do those casts look genuine to you? Yes or no.

     
  • timsan posted at 12:49 pm on Tue, Feb 2, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    No, I never said it was the holy grail. It's only one (probably the best in my opinion) of many websites about this creature. Not to mention all the research that comes out of Russia, China, etc. The book (in the link) basically paints the same picture - a phenomenon which is worldwide and centuries old.

    I would never judge the phenomenon by looking at one example of casts in the newspaper. I also wouldn't judge it by other 'widespread phenomena' just because they're both widespread. These are basic errors of logic.

    To say there is no evidence for UFOs, Sasquatch, etc. is extremely narrow-minded. If one dismisses ALL of the personal narratives, then you might as well be arguing against the existence of God.

    Just remember that not long ago folks believed in a flat earth, didn't know about gravity, etc. and a lot of other stuff we take for granted nowadays. What else don't we know? What will be the next big "discovery"? Or will it simply be an official "recognition"? Scientists suspected the existence of quarks long before they actually 'observed' them. Now quarks are considered fact.

     
  • HeavyHemi posted at 3:01 am on Tue, Feb 2, 2010.

    HeavyHemi Posts: 14

    I would have thought timsan that the website (which you apparently decree as the Holy Grail for Sasquatch facts) dedicated to proving existence of Sasquatch, would have cited more than this on their FRONT PAGE as 'undisputed facts' :

    What are the undisputed facts about the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery?

    It's a fact that for more than 400 years people have reported seeing large, hair-covered, man-like animals in the wilderness areas of North America.

    It is a fact that sightings of these animals continue today. Real or not, these reports are often made by people of unimpeachable character.

    It is a fact that, for over seventy years, people have been finding, photographing, and casting sets of very large human-shaped tracks. Most are discovered by chance in remote areas. These tracks continue to be found to this day.

    It is a fact that the cultural histories of many Native American and First Nation peoples include stories and beliefs about non-human "peoples" of the wild. Many of these descriptions bear a striking resemblance to the hairy man-like creatures reported today.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Well it's a 'fact' that people all over the world have reported ghosts, UFO's, miracles, alien abductions assorted supernatural events and on and on for centuries.. The mere fact of such reports while interesting, isn't proof. Do those casts of of feet really look genuine to you just using your common sense?

    Also, overstating the evidence, in example:

    "Well, I guess you should go back and study some more because there certainly is DNA proof. Hair, scat and blood were found and tested by several universities in the Northwest and Britain. Britain found that it was ''no known primate''

    This is not an accurate statement. The blood sample was degraded and there was a 1 in 5000 chance it MIGHT be a hominid source. Neither the hair or scat provided DNA PROOF as you called it. So, essentially, even after all these years, Bigfoot occupies the same space as UFO's.

     
  • timsan posted at 7:19 pm on Mon, Feb 1, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    Cinebarbarian dismisses a whole 500-1000 pages (from multiple authors) in a mere 24 hours and now Rainnsurf claims knowledge of all the forest in the PNW??!!

    Let me get this straight. You find trash everywhere you hike so you figure the whole PNW must be explored and littered with trash? Brilliant logic.

    Maybe you guys can answer some questions I have on the significance of Ardi and the amount of litter in the Northwest Territories...

     
  • rainnsurf posted at 7:09 pm on Sun, Jan 31, 2010.

    rainnsurf Posts: 10

    You can't hike anywhere in the Pacific Northwest, I I mean anywhere, where you don't find sign of humans. There are pop cans, beer cans, and other pieces of human waste her there and every where. The mythical dark untouched forest does not exist, has not existed for quite some time. If there really were a Bigfoot, he would have been photographed tied to the hood of some hunter's car 50 years ago. Heck, hunters can't keep from shooting each other, If a species like Bigfoot were out there, one would be dead already. I think Ray Wallace is in heaven laughing at all the Bigfoot believers. But hey, keep coming to lewis county and spending your money while you look. All of us uneducated hicks can use the economic boost.

     
  • timsan posted at 5:21 pm on Sun, Jan 31, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    Wow, you dismiss an entire 500 page book and a who-knows-how-many page website in less than a day! You are very thorough. Must be that scientific principle at work.

    His comments 'hold true'? What does that even mean besides 'fits my worldview'?

    No, books don't make hard evidence. The hard evidence is inside the books.

     
  • timsan posted at 5:06 pm on Sun, Jan 31, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    Cinebarbarian,

    Holy smoke, you read a 500 page book complete with numerous maps, photos, etc. AND a website which is well over 500 pages and found NOTHING credible or scientific. Yes, I am sure my comments are irritating when I hold up over 1,000 pages of documentation and you guys can dismiss ALL of it in, what, less than a day! Wow, you're really thorough, eh? Must be that scientific principle at work there...

    His comments 'hold true'? What does that even mean besides 'fits my worldview'?

    Teeth imprints....still cracks me up.

     
  • strangetruth posted at 8:38 am on Sun, Jan 31, 2010.

    strangetruth Posts: 1

    Hey Cinebarbarian, You are just so smart, you must be a college grad. You studied physical anthropology, huh? Well, I guess you should go back and study some more because there certainly is DNA proof. Hair, scat and blood were found and tested by several universities in the Northwest and Britain. Britain found that it was ''no known primate''.. Go to the Oregon Bigfoot website and READ. Wake up..!!! Oh, and by the way, you're right about teeth imprints, they have been the main evidence in murder trials that wound up in convictions. They would be excellent forensic evidence....

     
  • HeavyHemi posted at 7:43 pm on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    HeavyHemi Posts: 14

    Geeze that 'guy' needs arch supports. Those casts, in my opinion are, obviously fakes. Feet are not board flat and something of that size (given the curious oddity of the detailed toes) would leave a more defined 3D impression.

     
  • jiggaplz posted at 6:43 pm on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    jiggaplz Posts: 3

    Lord they have neglected the Boistfort Valley, you go out there and can find a dozen people who will tell you about all the times they saw Bigfoot. And then when you see them next week they'll you again. And again, and again...

     
  • msharak posted at 3:49 pm on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    msharak Posts: 1

    The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true science and art. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

    Albert Einstein

     
  • GonFishin posted at 3:37 pm on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    GonFishin Posts: 53

    I have lived most of my life in the great NW woods and though I have never seen or heard anything that one could construe as a BF siting I do feel there is something to all the sitings.

    timsan your comment irritates me like only the ignorant can, Cine's comment holds true and a ton of books does not hard evidence make.

     
  • Cinebarbarian posted at 2:21 pm on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    Cinebarbarian Posts: 176

    Went there and found nothing scientific nor creditable evidence.
    As someone who spent a lot of time studying physical anthropology, I'll concede this much.
    Bigfoot is something some people believe in for various reasons.
    Some for what they saw or heard and others through faith based on what others saw or heard.
    Without the physical evidence, it's all a matter of believing based on faith. When one if found, then it ceases to be a faith based belief and becomes fact. If that day ever comes, remind me and I'll happily buy you a stake dinner while I dine on cold crow...

    PS. Yes teeth imprints.
    All primitive primates chew on roots, barks and other hard foods leaving behind DNA and teeth marks.

     
  • timsan posted at 1:10 pm on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    timsan Posts: 9

    Here's a link that you might want to check out before making such grossly misleading and just plain ignorant comments (teeth imprints?)...
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/lcr/abs/index.htm
    Then if you're really brave, you can venture to the BFRO site itself to check out all of their evidence... www.bfro.net
    Then again, why not just keep your head stuck firmly in your, uh, I mean, the sand? The deeper, the better.

     
  • Cinebarbarian posted at 12:29 pm on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    Cinebarbarian Posts: 176

    No hair ever found. No droppings. No teeth imprints. Nothing physical to do DNA off of. But Hey, Everyone needs a hobby.
    No harm in running around the woods with a camera; the further in the woods the better...

     
  • rockstarlizzy posted at 8:57 am on Sat, Jan 30, 2010.

    rockstarlizzy Posts: 5

    When I need some help explaining the culture of Lewis County to my international friends, I will share this video. Thanks!

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Today's e-Edition

Special Sections