Issue 1

BN

Where Bigfoot comes to B-Zine.

BNslugline

What’s in a name? (cont’d from page 1)

And we’re saying he’s 8 or 9 feet tall . . . and the Indians don’t know what the hell we’re talking about.
   Bigfoot is this cone-headed gorilla man walking on enlarged, funny, but human-like feet. There are so many different types of these comical feet that if all were real (and sadly most are accepted as such) then there must be 15 species of “Bigfeet” roaming North America.
   This is hardly likely. But the tales are tall. They make the campfire warmer and they are funner to spread around. That is where folklore takes over and the truth is hidden.
   The original Bigfooters achieved a unique place in folklore chasing such a giant amalgam. They were as intrinsic in the pursuit of Bigfoot as St. George was in his quest for the dragon— a unique, coveted place in popular lore to hold.
   But they never found anything. It’s time to look for the truth behind the folklore they swallowed. And that truth is Saskahaua George. 

Lingua Fanca
Chinook Trading Jargon:
A Skoocum language

Did you know that the hyas muckamuck of the Klickatats, Casanov, kept a hired henchman? This murderer was so dreaded he was known as “Casanov’s Skoocoom.”
   Casanov and his henchman may be gone, but Chinook Jargon is still with us and it continues to delight people. It is a lingua franca and, in some ways, the Yiddish of the Whites and Amerindians of the Pacific Northwest.
   Skoocum may not mean a tough henchman anymore, but it still means “cool,” first rate, but with an edge. Perhaps “macho” is a good translation— Chinook to Spanish and into English. Can you handle it? All that matters is that you understand the meaning. That is the purpose of language. Skoocoom originally meant strong or swift. Something very impressive.
   The language has given us more than interesting words. These words reflect the culture and mind of the people.  Hooch anyone? Well, we’ve all heard of hooch, even if it’s not homemade anymore. But how about hum opoots? Are you calling me a skunk’s ass? No, hum opoots is calling a skunk’s beehind a “stinky butt.” That’s the word for skunk. If you’re out tramping around British Columbia looking for Sasquatch signs and bullets come ricocheting near you from a hunter out to bag his mowitch, just shout in anger “hum opoots!” He’ll understand you!
   Language must live to show you its expressions. A dead body does not show any expression of vigor. It is but the lifeless shell. So are words on a page of a dead language.
   To appreciate the Jargon’s use we must start using it. Cultus mitlite is a great way to start. Just “hang” out and hear how the words are used. Fire chuck, if you’ve got it. But it is polite to BYOFC.
   So klahowya! Let’s start. Chuck, of course, is water. It is probably the best word to start with to show how Chinook Jargon connects words to make new ones. Skoocoomchuck— swift or strong water i.e. rapids.
   How about THE SKOOCUM? Well, every Bigfooter thinks they’re Bigfeet. We can leave off the debates. But understanding the word helps people to understand what the Indians meant when they introduced artist Paul Kane to the legend that “a race of beings of a different species who are cannibals” lived on Mount St. Helens.
   The very word Skoocoom tells us they were strong “people.” But the context tells us they were very different people. They were the masterful redundancy: “race of beings of a different species.”  Wawa what?  Say what?
   All we can say is the Skoocoom were pretty gross “somethings.” For killing a mountaineer and eating him they were considered cannibals. They were human enough to be considered cannibals, but they really weren’t like any people the Indians had ever seen. They were strong and swift, that is for sure.
   Have you come across Kinchotch? Yes, many times! Kinchotch is how the Indians pronounced King George. It became synonymous with a Brit. Sometimes “man” was added: “Kinchotch men”— British troops.  Kinchotch Illihee? “King George land”— Great Britain.
   It’s all kosher, if you don’t mind me switching linguas. Chinook added many unusual words together to form words. Klootchman is a good example. Nukta for female and English for man. It means “woman.”
   Tenas and hyas are other good base words. Tenas is young and hyas is great. High mucketymuck comes from hyas muckamuck— the head honcho, boss, chief, if you don’t mind me mixing my languages again.
   Tenas chuck is a pond. Young water. How wonderful it is to know some of the Jargon. If you search for Sasquatch, you best know some.
   Sasquatch-- Saskahaua George. He’s the hairy giant Indian of the Saskahaua District. He’s the lemolo siwash (now called sawash). The wild savage. Indians only called themselves and other Indians sawash (from French la sauvage). They never called a white man that and, if you’re anything but Indian you don’t call an Indian sawash.
   Saskahaua George comes down to us as “Sasquatch” because the Indians seldom liked to refer to them as sawash (siwash a century ago). That implied they were Indians. But this is something that offended the Indians. Sasquatch were something very different, and no true Indian wanted to be associated with these hairy wild giants.
   Surprisingly, though, sawash they were called. Ivan T. Sanderson was even surprised when George Chapman, of the Ruby Creek Incident, had admitted he never heard the word Sasquatch. He had only heard of the giant hairy Indians of the mountains.
  White man has made many mistakes about Sasquatch and Bigfoot merely because he didn’t understand a very vibrant and living language of a very internationally minded people of the Pacific Northwest.
   Here are some old pages of Chinook Jargon that may help.  This way, should we ever come across each other’s paths in the wilderness, you won’t get in my way. I don’t want to have to call you a hui-hui   . . .well, I won’t finish that!

Chinnook jargon Anderson Chinookjargon2
Chinookjargon1
Chinookjargon4
Chinookjargon3
Tony-foot2

Well-known artist and Facebook friend Tony Merrithew drew this on his daily sketch on FB one day. Copied here by permission. 

Shock of the Truth?
Digger Indians and “Bigfoot”

There’s that old report in the Antioch Ledger of 1870 describing “gorillas in Crow Canyon,” California. They were a male and female and were about 5 feet tall. Upon their heads their hair stood up in a shock like a “digger Indians,” described the hunter. And it grew very close to the eyes.

Digger Indians
               Digger Indians

   That is hardly like a description of Bigfoot, is it? Yet the hunter describes these to be like apes of sorts, with long arms and heads that sprang out of their shoulders. Their chests were unusually thick for such small heads.
   Should we rationalize this “shock” on the head to be this hunter’s ignorant description of a cone head? There seems no justification for this. But there is yet another coincidence with Ameranthropoides loysi we must keep in mind.
   Young spider monkeys’ head hair does grow in such a fashion that many times they not only look cone-headed but have a shock blk-handed-spider-monkey-maat the very top.
   This is yet another interesting coincidence with the Indian artwork showing Dsonoqua having the same boney ocular ridge as spider monkeys and Francois de Loys picture of Ameranthropoides loysi.

Size Matters
. . .so does shape

The picture below intrigued many and caused others to scorn. It is Jerry Crew with the famous plaster case of “Big Foot.” It is known as The Crew Print.
   At the same time as Crew, A Bluff Creek catskinner who worked for Ray Wallace, was finding these enlarged flat human prints, his boss Ray Wallace was reporting odd “hourglass” prints 15 inches long elsewhere. 

Crew

   Bill Chambers of the Humboldt Times investigated both tracks. The Crew Print is the one shown to the world, and it has become “Bigfoot” today. But it never appeared again after that August to October 1958. However, Wallace’s hourglass print would continue off and on for 9 years. It’s shape influence signs and even scientific discussion.
   When in 2002 Ray’s family confessed he had been behind the hoaxing, “Bigfooters” did comparisons of the casts and those a1bigfoot05_120420290205wooden hour glass feet Dale Wallace, Ray’s nephew, had shown the world.
   Indeed the Crew Print was vastly different from the wooden fake feet held in Dale’s hand. However, this comnparison conveniently overlooked that two distinct set of tracks were found at the same time.
   Had Bigfooters 52 years ago done accurate comparisons between the only known Sasquatch track (Ruby Creek) and the garish “Big Foot” track of far-away Bluff Creek, they would have realized there was no association between the ancient Indian legend of Sasquatch and California’s wooden footed gadfly.  

Restoring Bluff Creek

Surely, nobody can dare deny that Bluff Creek, that one-time Mecca and birthplace of Bigfoot, was a hoax. The wooden feet that Dale Wallace showed the world back in 2003 match those documented there by John Green for over a period of 9 years. Ray and Wilbur Wallace were at the center of it all, Ray using his Granite Construction Company as the epicenter for his Bigfoot shenanigans.
   Unfortunately, we are inclined today to erase Bluff Creek from the dossier of Sasquatch. But the area actually had an impressive history of sightings of some harry “what is it?” The Happy Camp report of 1882 is one such case in point. The famous “Kangaroo Man” certainly vexed the area north of there for 30 years.
   It’s sad that Wallace and “Bigfoot” got the upper hand after 1958. His tracks stepped into and erased those of the old legends, but they did not destroy what they spoke about.
   This is poignantly seen in an article in the Humboldt Times, the newspaper that brought the world the stories of the Siskayous. It is dated October 14, 1958, during the hoopla of Bigfoot’s discovery. But it covers a track seen the spring before.
   The Korbel Woods Tracks, as I call them, were described by one of the 4 men who followed them, Julian Pawlus. “Paulus said that there were three toes straight out and a couple of smaller on the side.” He preferred to refer to it as a paw.
   Nothing is more at odds with the hourglass fakes that Ray Wallace used or the enlarged flat human foot that made the Crew Print. But some monkeys and apes, if they bend a toe under while walking, can make such a print. See the the photo below. In light of artwork and stories of Ameranthropoides loysi . . . consider a hairy legend could still be in Bluff Creek.     

Spidermonkeystanding

Another Look at the Loysi

What Francois de Loys shot in 1920 in the jungles of Venezuela has been repeatedly condemned as a hoax. The picture he took of what appears to be a 5 foot tall spider monkey, tailless, and more developed like a man, stood as an impasse to the evolutionary theories of the time. Sir Arthur Keith condemned de Loys in Man as having done nothing but cut the tail off a spider monkey and prop it on a crate.
   Keith got away with his condemnation of a respected geologist because no zoologist was expecting to see an “ape” version of a known genus of monkey.
   Gradualistic evolutionary theory of the time posited that any bipedal primate must be closer to mankind and above the apes, the only other great primates we knew about. That was the problem with de Loys claims and his picture. De Loys insisted that the two anthropoids he and his party encountered were bipedal. They also ripped branches off the trees and began to beat the bushes with them in an attempt to get de Loys’ and his men to back off.
   Such behavior is decidedly more human. Yet the pictured showed something very close to Spider Monkeys, a small quadraped with a long prehensile tail. If de Loys’ discovery was legitimate it threw a spanner into the evolutionary theories of the time. How could something from America be closer to mankind in development? Mankind originated in the Old World. Therefore if a “missing link” were ever encountered, it should be an old world primate, not a new world primate.
   At the very least the existence of Ameranthropoides Loysi opened up theories on lateral evolution, and very disturbing theories they would be. Lateral evolution  suggested that  “men” could evolve from entirely different simian lines. Therefore there could be “species of men” who are totally unrelated to us. In a word WOW! Such a concept is very unsettling.

ameranthropoides_loysi1

De Loys’ discovery has faded into oblivion. . . almost. There were a few who believed him. Prof. George Montandon was one of the them. In fact, he was the one who introduced the “new species” to the world and named it after de Loys.  Ameranthropoides Loysi really only means “Mr. Loys’ Ape-like American.”
   But is this designation wrong? Montandon did an impressive amount of research, uncovering that Pedro de Cieza de Leon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and several others had heard of such hairy “ape men” living in the jungles. Montandon also discovered that  statues of some ape-like creatures exist in Mayan architecture at Merida in Mexico.
   They, too, suggest the Loysi. South America stories said that these “ape-men” always traveled in a pair, male and female. Indeed, de Loys shot the female and the male ran off wounded into the jungle. So far that fit.
   But more also fit. De Loys’ photo showed that the female had enlarged reproductive organ, to the point that to the casual observer she would be appear to be hermaphrodite. The statues in Merida reflect some of these unique anatomy as well. One shows what is apparently a male “ape” carrying a baby.
   Walter Raleigh heard legends about manlike monsters in the jungles that resembled the pans and satyrs of Greek myth. Considering the enlarged size of the sexual organs all Loysi would no doubt appear as males from afar, a trait that resembles the race of satyrs, those bestial men with enlarged sexual organs.
   It is very possible that such anthropoids made quite an impression on the Maya as they migrated north. Always traveling in pairs male and female would mean that new populations would arise wherever they settled. Following the Sierra Madres could bring them into California, then the Pacific Northwest.
   Taking up where Montandon left off I have found evidence to suggest this. This is in the form of two concrete sightings. One was made of a pair of male and female “what are they?” near Orestimba Creek in 1869. It appeared in the Antioch Ledger in 1870. The other appeared in the St. Louis Democrat in 1869. Both descriptions are of those of Amernthropoides Loysi. They were both around 5 feet tall, had huge hands, walked on hind legs for the most part and had small heads. They were mean and ugly, and could be as vicious as they wanted to be.
   More concrete than this is the Indian artwork of the Pacific Northwest. The Loysi has one very interesting facial feature, one that it shares on common with all spider monkeys. This is a circular boney ridge around the eyes. Apes usually just have a jutting brow over their eyes. But in the case of spider monkey this thick brow extends around the eye over the cheek and to the nose. The eyes are encircled by an entire thick brow, and look like the Loysi is wearing glasses.
   Amazingly, this feature is seen clearly on a number of rock heads retrieved from the Columbia Valley by Othniel Marsh. It is also found on some Dsonoqua Masks and is reproduced with admirable accuracy on the mask of the “Hami” of the Koskimo Indians. By its howling mouth, the mask is surely portraying a male Dsonoqua.
   The Dsonoqua is an interesting Indian legend. They were a nude, fierce people of the forest. They were noted for howling and whistling. And every Dsonoqua mask is noteworthy for having pursed lips, as if the Dsonoqua is always whistling or howling.
   This feature is the most predominate charastic South America indians declare for the Ameranthropoides loysi.           

Hami02

   Koskimo Indian dressed as a Hami. Notice how the mask reproduces the features of the spider monkey and Loysi exactly.

cap434

Another Dsonoqua mask. Note the heavy ridge around the eyes.

In a very real way, the Indian art of the Pacific Northwest justifies a very vilified geologist for taking a photo of something no one thought could have existed: an “ape” version of a known genus of monkey. And, in fact, the Loysi does really strike one as a “monkey man.”
   There are a few classic “Bigfoot” cases that seem to be the Loysi. One is the famous case of Indians rowing out to the steamer Capilano. They reported that they were fishing on the beach when this creature came out. He was about 5 feet tall and started howling. He basically scared the hell out of them and they sought refuge aboard the steamship.
   Others include the stories of the Bushman in Alaska. Albert Petka and John Meyer both report encounters with monkey men who attacked in twos and threes and had to be driven off by their dogs. Meyer even died later of internal bleeding.
   So is Ameranthropoides loysi, this 5 foot tall, crap-flinging “spider ape” the raspberry behind Sasquatch?
   The answer is No. The Indians distinguished between the Dsonoqua and Sasquatch. It was White man who mixed them together. . .and unfortunately added so much more.

   For more see Gian J. Quasar’s book Recasting Bigfoot: Uncovering the truth of Sasquatch amidst the hype of Bigfoot.

spider-face02

                 Folklorean Falstaff:
                 Reassessing Grover Krantz

Bigfoot and unfortunately therefore Sasquatch have been cleaned up in “scientific” theorizing as “Gigantopithecus,” a giant prehistoric ape that is known to us only by some fossilized teeth and a jawbone from the Silawak Hills of India.
   This isn’t the first time that “science” has made myth look plausible. But the greatest myth about Gigantopithecus is its illusion of being a “scientific” theory. Krantz02
   The theory was first proposed by a small town newspaper editor and reporter, John Green, that venerable man of Bigfoot Letters. He arrived at it purely by the modern folklore of “witnesses” reporting a Bigfoot a whopping 8 or 9 feet tall. Since such a fossilized giant jawbone did exist, it was a convenient fit.
   Green, however, never became the “talking head” of the Gigantopithecus theory.
   For the popular Press to qualify as “science” they need someone who is a “scientist.” This often comes down to someone who has a degree in one of the sciences. From there it comes down to someone who has a theory, doesn’t relent from endorsing it, and is free for interviews when the need arises. In other words, it takes a Johnny-on-the-spot.
   Grover Krantz, a physical anthropologist from Washington State University at Pullman, became that man. He even had the good graces to admit he was merely the most accessible person in the world of Sasquatchery for the Press to come to. 
   In Krantz’s hands, Gigantopithecus rose to become the dominant “respectable” theory to explain unproven reports of encounters with Bigfoot. Yet despite Krantz’s academic position Gigantopithecus remained a theory at which John Green had arrived purely by folklore. Krantz, surprisingly, added no information thereto to underpin the theory with more solid evidence.
     Grover Krantz entered the fray of Bigfoot at Bossburg, the enormous fiasco that gave old Bigfootery a much deserved black eye (see Gian Quasar’s upcoming book Recasting Bigfoot, chapters “Anatomy of a Debacle” and “Cine du Sasquatch”). The goal of the Bossburg hunt was “Cripple Foot,” a formless Sasquatch known only by its right distorted footprint, which showed that at one point the foot must have been broken.
   After meeting with the various warring camps of the Bigfooters/woodsmen, Krantz must have come away feeling there was little intelligence in the bunch, an attitude he never lost. Cripple Foot’s cast was CrippleFootillustrationtangible evidence. He looked it over and believed that none of the Bigfooters were capable of forging the detail he noticed.
   With a copy of Green’s first self-published booklet On the Tracks of the Sasquatch and a copy of the Patterson Film, Krantz ensconced himself in his office at Pullman, Washington. With this evidence alone, Krantz came to his conclusion that Bossburg’s famous Cripple Foot was not incongruous with the legend of Bigfoot and enlarged human feet, which Green had equated with the Canadian Sasquatch.
     While Bossburg was still hotting up, one of the Bigfooters there, Dickie Davis, wrote up a contract for how they would divide the Bigfoot (financially) and present it to the world. The contract showed that John Green could write the book and that Grover Krantz could dissect it and introduce the species to the world.
   This is significant. For it shows how quickly Krantz had come to his conclusion. When the Cripple Foot was mysteriously never caught and simply faded away, Krantz was left to introduce the Cripple Foot cast to the world. This was on the early and influential documentary Bigfoot: Man or Beast?, 1971.

Unstable Theoretician

   Krantz’s road to Gigantopithecus was as unstable as his assessment of the evidence presented to him for study. In his interview, he declared that it would have taken an expert at human anatomy to have faked the unique bulges seen in the cast of Cripple Foot. However, a few years later in Mysterious Monsters (1975) Krantz declared the Cripple Foot to not be a human foot. Krantz also declared that fake Bigfoot tracks are merely “enlarged copies of human feet,” overlooking that the uncrippled left foot of Cripple Foot was merely that.
   Of his study of the Patterson Film, he declared that he didn’t feel that Patterson could have faked all that he personally detected.
   Bossburg’s Cripple Foot and Patterson’s film remained the pillars that would uphold Krantz’s endorsement that Bigfoot was authentic. Even 22 years after he entered the pursuit at Bossburg, they remained the cornerstones of his disappointing book BIG-Footprints (1992).
   Within its pages Krantz still chose to dispute whether the “breasts” on Patterson’s Bigfoot were indeed breasts. He agreed that they were the best option, but still considered laryngeal air sacs as an alternative. These arguments, first expressed in his spots in old 1970 documentaries, were now hopelessly antiquated. Even most pro-Patterson Bigfoot factions accepted those pendulous pouches on its chest to be breasts.
   The problems with Krantz’s theorizing is that the Patterson Bigfoot also had a sagittal crest, in other words a cone-head. This is a feature of many male primates but never female.
   Krantz disputed that it was a male characteristic. He theorized instead that it was a size characteristic. “If there were a female primate of the 500 pound body size it would have to be so big that it would have a crest as well. So it’s not a male characteristic.”
   Zoologists were not impressed. The Gibbon is a much smaller primate, and yet the males of many species (due to hair growth mostly) possess the cone-head. It obviously was a male characteristic and not a size characteristic.
   The combination of both male and female attributes had made many zoologists laugh when seeing the Patterson Film. Eyewitness accounts of genuine encounters with female Sasquatches (such as William Roe’s) make it plain the female Sasquatch has no pointed head.
   Krantz endorsed the Patterson Film basically on his belief Patterson was not educated enough to have faked what he saw in the film.
   Roger Patterson was a rodeo rider and promoter. He became involved in the search for Bigfoot in 1964. He was the first to write a book and the first, coincidentally, to film a Bigfoot at Bluff Creek in 1967. He was heavily influence in his view of Bigfoot’s appearance by Ivan T. Sanderson, a famous naturalist who had written a book on the Yeti and other cryptids in 1962 (Abominable Snowmen). Yeti was always said to sport a tall cone-head, and Sanderson’s book helped bring that image to Americans.
   Patterson’s film subject— the Bigfoot in his film— became an unusual amalgam: female breasts and a pointed male cone head. Krantz endorsed it as real.
   This is the image that came forward into American folklore: a bipedal giant gorilla. Although it is far from what the Indians had said the Sasquatch were, this became the new image of Sasquatch/Bigfoot. But it is also far from theories regarding Gigantopithecus.
   Due to the worldwide popularity over the Himalayan Yeti, many anthropologists, including Harvard’s Carlton Coon, and the father of Crypto-zoology, Bernard Heuvelmans, had speculated that Yeti could be a living Gigantopithecus. The Yeti foot, as established in the famous Shipton Photo, appeared as an ape/human hybrid. cap336
   This foot became the most studied foot of its time. Of this footprint Krantz later declared: “Until another photo- graph or cast of that particular foot design turns up, I see no point in taking it seriously.”
     This overlooked that the 1954 Daily Mail Expedition did indeed follow such tracks. Also,  when Shipton photographed the above picture it was only one track of two creatures walking aside each other. Upon this foot, Coon, Bernard Heuvelmans and others had built Yeti and speculated upon Gigantopithecus.
     This footprint is radically different from Sasquatch and Bigfoot. Yet in BIG-Footprints Krantz would write: “As far as I can determine it was Bernard Heuvelmans (1952) who first suggested the connection between Gigantopithecus and the Himalayan yeti. Ivan Sanderson made the same proposal in 1961, he was soon joined by anthropologist Carleton Coon (1962), and many others have since agreed. In 1968, John Green made the specific equation with our North American sasquatch, and this has become the near consensus of opinion.”
   This consensus, however, was not amongst anthropologists but self-styled Bigfooters who seemed to have done no comparative analysis. The Yeti footprint has never been found in America, and the Bigfoot print is even different from the Sasquatch print.
   Despite Krantz’s book’s promo touting him as an expert in crypto-zoology, he had not even a passing knowledge of Yeti. Nor did he have much knowledge on Sasquatch history. He had endorsed the Albert Ostman story of having lived with 4 Sasquatches, saying that his description fit those of others, when, in fact, Ostman’s was noteworthy for being radically different. Ostman said that the female had wide hips and her hair had bangs.

Media Image

The image of Grover Krantz as the exclusive scientific investigator of Bigfoot is erroneous. Ivan Sanderson, a Cambridge educated zoologist, had questioned the happenings at Bluff Creek, saying that an air of contrivance surrounded them. Dr. John Napier, the Smithsonian’s head Primatologist, was the first academic to write a book with Bigfoot as the title. He expressed his belief the Patterson Film was fake.
   To what extent did Krantz truly investigate? He often said this was not his “normal work.” He merely did it on the side. The multitude of factual errors and the lack of theoretical progression revealed in his 1992 book do argue for a lackadaisical, even careless interest.
   Krantz insisted that his association with Sasquatch research had hurt his career. A year after Bossburg he had been deferred on tenure at WSU. He said that various “lame” excuses filtered back to him that Sasquatch was not the reason. However, Krantz was then denied full professorship. He remained only Associate Professor for the rest of his life. “Though it was quite specifically denied to my face, I have no doubt that my sasquatch work was the major deciding factor against promotion.”
   After his death, Bill Lipe, professor Emeritus, clarified some of WSU’s actions. He, too, said that is wasn’t Sasquatch that had kept Krantz back. “He couldn’t publish his articles on Bigfoot in peer-reviewed journals, and he didn’t seek the research grants.” Lipe had stated that most of them didn’t think his evidence was very good. “The evidence never got any better.”
   Krantz’s avoidance of formal academic review and his shunning of actual field research (which required grants) is unusual in light of his certainty about Cripple Foot and the Patterson Film. It is also unusual in light of the fact that he haphazardly did seek private money for research. While head of Northwest Hominid Research, a private group, he asked for but received no donations. There was also a plan whereby people could donate to WSU and specially mark his Sasquatch research. None was received.
   Krantz’s reputation with the media appears to have been better than that within Bigfootery. Rene Dahinden even threatened to have him blacklisted at one point and said “Every time you open your mouth you say something stupid.”
   This was inspired by the fact that Krantz was largely classroom bound and yet commented on so many things ongoing in the field. He accepted as genuine tracks at Blue Creek Mountain because some showed dermal ridges. “It would take an expert in dermoglyphics to reproduce these.” And yet he accepted that the hair placed at the site was synthetic. One track of footprints contained two left feet.
   Krantz’s evidence was perhaps not so good because it emanated solely from the world of folklore. Plaster casts had been handed or mailed to him, and in each case he refused to accept that somebody could hoax information past him. He did no original research for himself. As such, he was merely at the bottom of a funnel in which hoaxed and questionable data was being sent.
     The element he contributed was his own unstable method of determining authenticity. It eventually came down to believing that nobody else involved in Bigfootery was educated enough to fool him.
   Yet looking back at the evidence he amassed, it is ironic that he had not seen one piece of authentic Sasquatch evidence.
   Many scientists had studied the evidence and walked away. Krantz remained the media talking head because he was the one who endorsed a carnival the media could feed off.  

CLASSIC LAYOUT

A moment in Bigfoot History

The article that started it all

classiclayout

Roger Patterson was so influenced by Ivan T. Sanderson’s articles in True Magazine that he copied the illustrative artwork of Mort Kunster and Louis Glanzman for two of his own illustrations in Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? without giving credit. Sanderson’s image of Bigfoot was that of a cone-headed (bullet head in Sanderson’s writings) bipedal gorilla. Patterson would later film just such a “Bigfoot” at Bluff Creek, California, October 20, 1967. Yet the cone-headed apeman is exactly what Sasquatch is not.

a_Pattersonbigfootprint24_1

Bogus Bigfoot   Ruby Creek Incident   Bluff Creek Incident   Skoocums   Home   Footprint Comparisons   Gian Quasar

a_Pattersonbigfootprint24_1