If you know anything of the history of Sasquatch, you know that the Indians insisted there existed two tribes. Over the Pacific Northwest various Indian tribes may have called them by different names, but one thing was the same: they were considered wild, hairy humans 6 feet to 6 and one half feet tall. The Indians of the Saskahaua District called them Saskahaua Sweqe. One of the tribes was said to speak a dialect near that to Douglas.*
Sasquatch as a name predominates because the Indian agent for that district, J.W. Burns, wrote about the Indian legends, first in 1929 in MacLean’s Magazine, where he introduced the very word “Sasquatch,” anglicizing Chehalis Indian brave Charlie Victor when he said Saskahaua Chotch ( Doubtlessly, Burns didn’t know his Indian charges were using the Chinook trading language or he simply would have translated it literally).
But many names have been given to a wild “hairy man” in the Pacific Northwest. There is the Bukwas, the Dsonoqua, and the wauk wauk among many others. The Koskimo Indians called it Hami or “Dangerous thing.”
But despite the diversity of names, one attribute predominates, and that is found in Indian artwork. Both in wood masks of the Dsonoqua and in the rock heads in the Columbia Valley, it is clear that the ape-like “Hami” or Dsonoqua has a strange ridge around its eyes that completely encircles it. It is like the thick brow on any large ape, but it continues around over the cheek and to the nose, so that the eye is set inside this boney ridge. It is, in fact, a feature of Spider Monkeys.
It is for this reason that Francois de Loys was universally condemned for perpetrating
a hoax in 1920 when he shot two such “creatures” in South America and photographed the corpse of the female. His party of 20 bravos had been in the “green hell” of the Amazon for 3 years and his party was culled down by half. By the Rio Catatumbo they came across two 5 to 6 foot tall “apes” that advanced on their hind legs, brandished branches and shrieked at them. The pictures, right, shows the “Ameranthropoides loysi.”
Although he was condemned, for no zoologist expected to see an “ape” version of a known genus of monkey, my research has shown that the features of the loysi dominate the artwork of the Pacific Northwest Indians. This is obvious in the Hami of the Koskimo Indians. See the ocular area of the wooden mask, left. The entire body suit is also that of an “ape.”
To know the actual features of the Skoocoom or Dsonoqua is to laugh at what is being presented now as being found by 2 Georgians. By 1930, the Indians of the Saskahaua thought the Sasquatch men were extinct. It is another matter altogether how “Sasquatch” became Bigfoot and roamed over the whole North American continent, but I reserve that for my upcoming book Recasting Bigfoot.
Here let us stick to the known features of Sasquatch. Another is that, although Sasquatch is mostly said to have only 4 toes, it was never said to have human-like feet. Rather, the Indians said it had unusually long feet for its size. Brave Peter Williams confirmed that to J.W. Burns in 1929. This was reconfirmed in a dynamic way at Ruby Creek in 1941 when Deputy Sheriff Joe Dunn traced the actual print of the Sasquatch, revealing a long monkey-like foot with a heel near identical to a Spider Monkey.
Dr. de Loys was condemned for perpetrating a hoax because the subject of his picture was basically an ape version of a known genus of monkey. No one had considered that an actual different type of primate neither man, ape or monkey could exist. It was against the gradualistic evolutionary theories of the time. Ameranthropoides loysi therefore could not exist. Although it was illogical to assume that a respected geologist searching for oil deposits would perpetrate a hoax in the jungle, that was preferable than admitting there could be “apes” that were closer related to monkeys but more human-like than any ape genetically related to us.
Professor George Montandon, however, did a close study of de Loys’ report. (de Loys had no knowledge of zoology or anthropology, but examined the “ape” closely.) This clinched it for Montandon. Montandon also had a cousin in the oil company and got an exact copy of the oil crate upon which the “ape” was sat for photographing. This was 17 and 3/4 inches tall. This proved the “ape” was probably around 5 feet tall, like de Loys’ said. Montandon also discovered that the Maya had huge statues of such “apes,” and that Pedro de Ciezo de Leon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the marquis de Wavrin, all noted the existence of such “wild men” in South America. They were noted for traveling in male/female pairs, whistled loudly, and were around 5 to 6 feet tall. Naturalist Philip Gosse had written in the mid 19th century that from the evidence there existed an ape there larger than the Orangutan and Chimp. Montandon was sure de Loys’ photograph contained just such an “ape.” He introduced it to the world in 1929, declaring it Ameranthropoides loysi after de Loys-- “Mr. Loys’ Ape-like American.”
It appears de Loys’ did indeed shoot one in 1920. Those who have accepted de Loys’ discovery as genuine, however, stop there and make no connection with it and the Sasquatch and Dsonoqua or Skoocooms of the Pacific Northwest Indians. I was able to take the loysi to the Pacific Northwest, discovering that in 1870 the Antioch Ledger of California carried an article written by a hunter who came across a male and female of just such a creature. He reported that they whistled loudly and were 5 to 6 feet tall. Yet there was no way that the hunter could have known about the old legends of the hairy men of South America. And this was 50 years before de Loys would shoot one and Montandon would dig through the history of such a thing to discover these very attributes.
Being long-legged and very mobile, it appears the loyses could easily migrate north and become the hairy wild Dsonoqua and Skoocoom of the Pacific Northwest. They could easily follow the Sierras and then the Cascades. They also could have followed the Rockies and find wooded grounds to their liking in Oklahoma. In 1869, Arcadia Valley, Crawford County, Kansas (by Oklahoma) was terrorized by such a “wild creature,” M.S. Trimble writing to the Missouri Democrat:
“It has so near a resemblance to the human form that the men are unwilling to shoot it. It is difficult to give a description of this wild man or animal. It has a stooping gate, very long arms with immense hands or claws; it has a hairy face and those who have been near it describe it as having a most ferocious expression of countenance; generally walks on its hind legs but sometimes on all fours. The beast or ‘what is it?’ is as cowardly as it is ugly and is next to impossible to get near enough to obtain a good view of it.”
Trimble expressed his hope that if any showman had lost a gorilla or orangutan, or if a menagerie back east in St. Louis is missing such an animal, they will see his letter and try to come and catch the thing. He wrote, with a definite air of frustration, how 60 men went hunting for it but it nonetheless eluded them. It was gone for several days, to their relief, but then it came back “as savage as ever.”
Could a loysi have made it to Georgia? It is possible. The “Skunk Ape” of Florida could indeed by a loysi. The “Fauke Monster” of Arkansas could as well. But loysi is not 7.5 feet tall and has, like the Skoocoom, 4 toes. What turned “Bigfoot” into a placid giant and made it some old world ape? Is there truth to that, or is this modern White Man’s myth? That is the subject of part of Recasting Bigfoot.
I highly doubt, however, that the peaceful “Bigfoot” found in Georgia is anything real. The Indians never had such legends there.
When pictures come available, let us compare them to see how they stack up with the real features of “Sasquatch.” From what I’ve seen of the Bigfoot corpse, this looks like a hoax inspired by the popular image of Bigfoot. Now it seems that the freezer in which the body was placed was flooded with water and turned to ice. This will make it impossible to photograph clearly, just like the Minnesota Iceman of 1969 fame.
Carved head showing the ridge around the eyes and the depression in the center of the nose typical of a Platyrrhinian monkey of South America and the large “ape” loysi.
Spider monkey.
Compare these to the Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer photos.
Now the chest is full of water, so the “Bigfoot” becomes unfilmable. It is merely some dark mass under ice. This is not even as good as the famous Minnesota Iceman hoax of 1969.
Jeffry Meldrum and Loren Coleman have drawn attention to this Sasquatch suit as the most probable explanation; add a rather weak try to make it look like its guts are hanging out. They look like a cat or rodent’s guts.
*Although sweyqe means “man” in Salishan and Klallam, the Indians would probably use the Chinook trading language with Whites. Thus it would be Saskahaua Chotch-- Literally George. A Kinchotch (literally “King George”) was a White Man of English, Scottish or Irish heritage. George could be “man” when speaking to a Brit. George was such a common name, equivalent to today’s “dude” or “guy” it was sometimes assimilated for “man” when speaking to Brits. It could be a race or tribe of men or an individual man. Thus man of the Saskahaua was a Saskahaua George. Pronounced Sasqwahachotch. Saskahaua men were frequently called “Sasquatch men.” Thus, some can argue that since the PNW Indians were so multi-linguistic (because of trade) that Sasquatch could derive from Cree plural outch --Saskahauaoutch: “Saskahaua men.” Also, Chinook “Mowitch,” commonly used for deer could also apply to any wild beast. Thus Saskahauawitch might have been conjugated. Saskaqenis and ‘Esquakenis meaning mountains or hairy could link with mowitch for wild hairy beast. Words were frequently linked. For some reason woman is “Klootchman” --Nookta “female” and English “man.”
CNN’s live briefing just ended. I’m calling this a hoax outright, but will update with my reasons to begin with. I am not saying who has perpetrated this hoax. But so far, the presentation is completely awkward and unnatural to any real presentation of such a discovery. One does not forget the date of such a discovery, and yet during the Press Conference, one of the duo who found this “Bigfoot” could not remember. This smacks of the Bossburg Fiasco in 1969. Let’s see how far this goes.
The 50th anniversary of Bigfoot is coming up on October 6, 2008. Is this a coincidence?