The Power Line Bigfoot Incident

A fellow bigfooter and went out to examine a site for evidence today. We found a few itrms of interest, but nothing definitive. First though, I want to share the details of the sighting.

This story comes to me second person, and I wasn't able to interview the person who had th sighting. Over the weekend a person I know came to me to relate the tale.

His friend was driving home after a long days work and was approaching a certain powerline crossing. He glanced to his right and saw what he thought was a super sized bear standing up on its hind legs. The head of the animal towered over the brush on the side of the road.

He apparently didn't think much of it other than the immense size of this creature. Perhaps it was just a bear, bit I was still interested in the sighting.

So, we went to see what we could see. Arrived on the scene, we parked down the road and walked both sides of it to examine the brush for evidence. On one side, Jim, the other researcher found some matted grass, as though a large animal had laid or sat down.

We also found several small breaks and plenty of various food plants. We continued on up the powerline and found more of the same. I approached one point and got a strong feeling that something was watching us and didn't want us there.

We ran out of time and had to head back to town, unfortunately. While we found no conclusive evidence, we will be returning to the site for a follow up bisit. I'm also going to be producing a video and putting it up on my YouTube channel.  Happy Squatchin' folks!

A Kokomo Bigfoot

This video was published on December 14th of last year. A Kokomo Bigfoot is a study of two newspaper articles relating the captures of two “wild men of the woods.” The first piece, “A Wisconsin Wild Man” tells of the capture of a wild man said to be about 60 years old. What strikes me about this piece is the description of his strength and the way he gets around by leaping on all four limbs, much like a kangaroo, as the article’s writer puts it.

He was nearly able to escape, but the sheer numbers of men present at his capture defeated his efforts, and he was finally subdued and brought into the jail for keeping. Ostensibly a story of just a man gone wild, demented in his own right, but there are several questions that arise that give one pause to wonder if this might not really have been an odd encounter with the Sasquatch.

The second story, from Indiana tells of a similar wild man capture, again of an older man. He was said to have a herculean physique and strength, and was found moving about on all fours, and also was unclothed. Both of these men uttered unintelligible sounds, with the only word coming from either of them being what sounded like the word or name Jacobson coming from the Kokomo specimen.

Probably just a couple of tales of strange men, but what if these were really stories of Sasquatch, or Bigfoot people encounters. They were of similar mien, and were found less than 500 miles apart, and in the same year. These two articles pose lots of questions. Maybe someone from those areas can take the research further and find some answers.

Sorry about the audio in this video, by the way, but I do need to invest in some new equipment which will have to wait. Also, the images at the end of the video are cuts of just a few of the headlines I have found dealing with the wild man of the woods enigma. Hope you enjoy, and don’t forget to subscribe, like and share if you do. And don't forget to visit Bigfoot Tales on Facebook!

The Yellowstone Bigfoot

Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything, but I'm going to try to remedy these lapses as best i can, especially in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch arena. In addition to having to work seven days a week at multiple jobs, I've also had to endure a fatal crash of my computer, resulting in the loss of most of my work. Backup will restore most of it, but it will take time to restore programming and drivers. But for now....

By now most of you have heard about and seen the many versions of the video coming from out of Yellowstone Park. It's a nice (b-roll) video, but does it really show what is purported to be a Bigfoot? In my opinion no. For one thing, if that was a real Bigfoot in the background behind the bison, the bison wouldn't be casually grazing as they strolled around.

From all accounts I have read about or seen on the tube, animals flee in terror when the Sasquatch people are in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the figures in the background appear to be more human in stature. They seem too thin, and don't appear to be overly tall in comparison to many height reports. They seem to me to fit within the parameters one would expect an average human adult to fit within.

I say "they" because it has been claimed that this is a family unit of Sasquatch. To me, it looks more like two adult couples out for a snowshoe hike in the snow.There are only a few seconds of the figures shown, bit it looks to me like the last one on line as a lighter colored jacket on, and as soon as this fact becomes apparent, the videographer zooms back out to a panoramic or wide view of the scene and we loose sight of them, whatever they are.

The usual breakdown kings and queens have all issued their proclamations as to the veracity and usefulness of this video to we Sasquatch researchers and fans,but I merely find it to be just another distraction in my search for the truth.

I've attached a YouTube video here so that you can take a quick look if you want to, but again, I find it useless as evidence, and shiws nothing Squatchy at all about the figures in the trees. Feel free to come to your own conclusions, and remember, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, bit we're not always in a place where sharing that opinion is allowed, and as always, facts are facts.

Connecticuts Cotton Hollow Bigfoot

A wild man story from Connecticut. Ostensibly, four men reported coming across a nine foot tall creature that weighed at least 500 pounds, and had 18 and 1/2 inch long footprints. Follow along as we share the article and find out whether this was just a simple wild man tale or if was really another Bigfoot encounter. This story comes to us from June of 1898.

A Possible Bigfoot Capture in Mexico?

I came across an article in the 23 Jan. 1907 issue of the Telegraph-Republican newspaper titled “Hairy Wild Man Is Captured in Mexico. As usual, I am immediately drawn to all stories about wild men, and in reading through it, found a few morsels that suggest this may have been another encounter with what we call a Bigfoot today.

A couple of points that I want to draw attention to in this piece is the suggestion that it may have been a human gone demented for one, and the location of his capture in Mexico for two. Frequently we will hear stories of wild men that turn out to be simply men who had gone wild in response to some catastrophic event, usually the rejection of some women. However, there are some where these stories cannot be corroborated, and the details of these stories compel me to give great consideration that the events may actually be depicting encounters with that race of people we call Bigfoot today.

This one in particular suggests the being had no language, at raw food, utilized no fire, and was covered with long shaggy hair, superseding the need for covering of any kind. Many of the wild men caught in the past had at least some kind of covering, if not against the weather, then for modesty’s sake. These stories I place in the pile of wild human class encounters.

The other interesting this is the location of capture, which was in the state of San Luis Potosi, which is located in south central Mexico. An area of little renown, poor in value as well as culture, I find it interesting in that this area is just a few hundred miles from the state of Sinaloa, which is where the famous Julia Pastrana was discovered. Ms Pastrana was exhibited in Europe as a wild woman exhibit. She too was covered in hair. There are some  other details, but we will look at that story some other time.

The point of the potential connection is that this wild man may well have been related to Pastrana. A few hundred miles was a long distance in the 1800’s, but it is still possible for related families to be separated by such a distance as people moved to find a better life elsewhere. Ms Pastrana was found as a slave at a moderate Mexican farm, and her actual parentage was unknown. Supposedly, as the story goes, she was found wandering in the desert by her owners.

However, as usual, I will simply share the story here and let you come to your own conclusion in the truth of this story of the maybe Mexico Bigfoot encounter.

HAIRY WILD MAN IS CAPTURED IN MEXICO

Eats Only Raw Meat and VegetablesAnd Possesses Low Order Of Intelligence.

San Antonio, Tex.^__ A wild man, such as has not been seen before, has recently been captured in Mexico.  A miner who recently arrived from Xilitla, a small village in the southern part of the state of San Luis Potosi, tells of the capture alive of a most remarkable creature.
   The wild man is now detained in Husteen, and will be transferred to some museum if his life is preserved. He is about six feet tall, vigorous, covered with long hair, and has blue eyes and a ruddy complexion. He eats raw meat and uncooked vegetables, but will not touch cooked food. He has no apparent language, but seems to possess intelligence above that of dumb brutes.
   Travelers in the remote mountains of El Apio a month ago saw the wild man and gave chase on horseback. The creature was run to earth in a natural cave in a hillside. There he was overpowered only after a fierce fight.
   There was no furniture in the cave nor any appearance of there ever having been a fire. Bones and portions of roots and fruits were scattered about the place, which presented the appearance of having been inhabited by the wild man for many months.
   There was a fragment of calico in the cave, which may have been a part of a garment. The wild man wore no clothing at all, being well covered with shaggy hair.
  After the people of the valley below were informed of the capture, they related the disappearance of a young woman from the settlement a year ago. Some of the captors thought there might be some connection between the rag found in the cave and the disappearance  referred to.
   Some persons advance the theory that the Wildman is really a human being, who has become demented, and from long exposure and rough living reverted to animal methods, even to the long hair.
   No signs can be found of any other specimen of the sort, although there is considerable unexplored territory that might cover a few more of his kind without discovery.

A Pennsylvania Bigfoot Encounter?

My research into the phenomenon we call Bigfoot today has brought to light a good many stories and articles of what used to be called :wild men." Most of these occasions were most likely simply human beings living apart from normal society, but every now and again I come across a story where the description  isn't so clear as to what it was, and then there are some that plainly do not fit the normal human description.

One such story comes from the Carroll Herald newspaper of June 16, 1909. Bylined from Westfield PA, on the 11th of that same month, it describes an encounter two men had with a rather peculiar beast at a woodlot on the property belonging to one of the men.

Charles Decker, the property owner, and another man named Horace Mays came within about thirty rods, or about 500 feet from the creature. According to the story, the two men at first thought the creature was bear, but the identification was discarded as the creature raised it arms to a limb on a tree, and pulled itself up into it. A few minutes later, the beast lowered itself from the tree and walked off on two legs, just like a human would.

Waiting a short while to make sure the beast was gone, the two men went over to the tree, and found large footprints that resembles a bears track. The earth was soft, so there was no trouble reading the spoor, especially since the men would be familiar with the animals of the area.

While the men were not certain as to what it was they saw, local opinion was that it may have been a gorilla. However, there are some problems with this assumption in that there were no records of any escaped menagerie animals of the ape sort. The usual wrecked circus train excuse was offered, but there were no validated reports of any circus train wrecks in the area.

This leaves us with supposition in the matter, but I would say that considering the men's report, it is quite probable that this was another historic Bigfoot encounter. But that's just my opinion. Remember, we cannot go back in time and interview these men so we are left with simply the newspaper article with which to study.

What do you think?

Until next time on Bigfoot Tales, thanks for the visit and happy Squatching!

Baumann's Bigfoot Tale

Most avid Bigfooter's are familiar with the story told by Theodore Roosevelt in his book "Wilderness Hunter'" but many haven't actually read the entire tale. Follow along with me as I share this intriguing story that some have come to consider as a Bigfoot attack on a trapper in the wild west. Was it a Bigfoot, or was it a bear? Come to your own conclusions with this story and a little bit of the backstory behind the tale.
Don't forget to comment, rate and share, as well as subscribe!
For more Bigfoot tales:  http://bigfoottales.wordpress.com/
For more Maine Bigfoot discussion: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MaineBigfootResearch/
My bookstore at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/dlsoucy

Bigfoot Faces in the Dark; part 3

In part two I discussed a bit about the new wave of cameras that hit the market allowing people to take better snapshots with less skill needed. This tool loaded onto almost all, if not all, cameras manufactured today. Marketing is the driving factor, and since most people buy cameras simply to take candid shots of friends and family under many different occasions, the people part of the photography world is a main selling tactic. Better people shots means more buyers for your camera.

The end result is of course that instead of making people take the time to learn the art of composition and clarity in photography, all they have to do is push a button and the camera does the work for them. It is great for wedding parties and the baby shower, but for Bigfoot hunting, it causes no end of problems.

Time and time again we look at the digital image on the back of our camera body and are certain we are looking at a Bigfoot. The reality is of course that what we are really observing is a composite image that has been created by the software in the camera of light and dark spaces, lines and dots that it thinks is a face. Since we are looking for a Bigfoot, we think that image is a Bigfoot. If we were looking for Lizard Man, we would think it was a Lizard man. The same rule would go far any sort of anthropomorphic creature we were looking for. If it has a face, then that is what we see in the camera view screen.

The lesson here is that when it comes to equipment, whether that would be a video camera or a still camera, we really should be looking for a camera that has an optical view finder as opposed to strictly a digital screen for setting up our shots. This eliminates that tendency to over-trust the image we are looking at because what we are looking at is the real thing, and not simply that composite image created for us by the camera.

We will still see faces in the shadows of course, because our brains also come with facial recognition software installed by the manufacturer. This is where a couple of terms come into play for we Bigfoot hunters. these two terms are pareidolia and simulacra. They sound rather brainy, and in a sense they are, but they help to explain why we see the things that we see, that really aren't.

Of the two terms, pareidolia is the most used. Unfortunately it is frequently misused, misunderstood, and overused. The term has been around for ages, but for those of us in the Bigfoot genre, it came into popular use after it was used by Ranae Holland in an episode of the hit TV show, Finding Bigfoot. As in many areas of popular followings, whenever a so-called expert emits a fancy term, the adorants of the hero figure latch onto the word and use it unceasingly because it fills a vacuum in their vocabulary. Eventually the term gets worn out and falls into disuse for the most part.

So what is pareidolia? Simply put, and I won't launch into a detailed explanation here, pareidolia is the unconscious act of our minds combining various features into what we perceive to be facial, or other, characteristics. In other words, facial recognition software. We so desperately want to find a Bigfoot that we subconsciously create a Bigfoot out of thin air, sort of, to satisfy that need. We create our own optical illusions to satisfy a need. Where this term gets overused is when we look at a digital image and see these images that others can see.

This is where simulacra comes into play. Pareidolia is entirely from our minds, and has no physical representation in the real world. Simulacra, on the other hand, is a physical manifestation of those images that can in fact be reproduced for others to see, even without direction. Sometimes the image is too subtle for others to see, and become critical of the image. You can take a picture of a particular image that you know beyond any reasonable doubt is a Bigfoot, but nobody else can see it. Why is that.

Well, there are a few reasons for that, and the most common reason is that there really is nothing there to see. There is no Bigfoot in the image. But you know it was there. Pareidolia is driven by our imagination, and sometimes the need to see a Bigfoot will make us see a Bigfoot when nothing is there. We believe it in our minds so strongly that nothing can deter us from our claims.

Very often, someone else has presented a picture or video of what they claim is a bigfoot, but also is a picture of nothing but the forest. That same desire drives us to see what is not there, even though we did not see it in real life, and there really is no Bigfoot in the image in front of us. How do we correct that situation that we seem to get ourselves into so often.

The best way is to make certain of what we see. If you see a Bigfoot in your cameras view screen, then you should also see it when not looking through the view screen. If you can see it in your screen, but not with your naked eye, then you are probably not seeing a Bigfoot. You are seeing a simulacra, a simulated image, and others quite likely will not be able to see a Bigfoot when you show them the picture or video.

This problem also rests in our ability to view things in a three dimensional format. Normal cameras can only perceive and capture two dimensions, width and height, but we humans can also perceive depth of an image as well. I have seen very few purported Bigfoot images that contain all three possible attributes, but there are a few out there.

Next time we'll get into a little bit more about 3D images and how that can work to help you take a valid Bigfoot picture that you can share with others.

Bigfoot Faces in the Dark: part 2

Last time I started talk about the differences between digital imagery and celluloid or film imagery, and why digital evidence can be a bad thing in your hunt for Bigfoot. When you take a picture with an old style film camera, what you see is what you get, but in a digital camera, you get oh so much more.

Older cameras rely entirely on optics for an image, but newer digital cameras actually have software that can enhance what you see. That is pretty cool, but the drawback is that it can lead you to believe that something is there, when it isn't. Take this picture I posted last time for instance.

 

 

This is a bit blurry, but understandable when you consider how enlarged it is from the original shot. It is a shot taken from a long distance of an area where I though I could sense something. I could not see anything with the naked eye, so I looked through my camera's viewfinder. I could see what I thought was a whatever, but when I got over to the place I took the photo of, there was nothing there. Naturally. Happens all the time in Bigfooting.

 

So, as we all do, I took a closer look at home, and upon examining it thoroughly, declared this to be an image of a medieval soldier. Yah, right. A medieval in the backwoods of 21st century Maine. Take a look at this image with the requisite redlines and all.

 

 

It kinda does look like a helmeted foot soldier with a pike and all. Was it really there? Of course not. However, the old adage states that the camera doesn't lie. That might have been true in the old days, but not any more. Today's digital camera's are expert liars.

Software manufacturers need to sell software, and so they develop software to sell to camera manufacturers who also need to sell cameras. And the cameras that sell, are also the cameras that people want. And people want cameras that take great pictures, without a lot of work going into the effort on their part.

Of course,  I'm talking about consumer grade cameras here, not the higher end prosumer and pro models. These would be the DSLR's and other cameras that capture images digitally, but use high quality optics for visual targeting and focusing.

Here is the problem with today's digital cameras and why so many people can see a Bigfoot that isn't; facial recognition software. Now, I have posted this fact on several forums with a lot of negative feedback from many of the members of those forum members. The fact is, sadly, that many people would rather comfortably rest on a lie as opposed to putting some hard labor into the truth.  The facial recognition software that is in these cameras, is not the same the facial recognition software that governments use to keep tabs on us.

Nevertheless, the detractors of my point don't care about facts, so to them I say; have a good day, and goodbye. To the rest of the community, I say; take a moment and learn something new. Here is how this software works: The software contains a set of predetermined parameters that are programmed to read various signals that may indicate the features of a persons face. Then it directs the cameras focusing mechanism to focus in on that specific point of the image to develop that perceived facial feature, while ignoring the rest of the image.

In a nutshell, if a set of shadows and highlights fall together in the right pattern, your camera will show you what it thinks is a person. It doesn't matter if there is a person there or not, what matters is if the camera thinks there is a person. My advice to you is that if you really want to take pictures of Bigfoot, if your camera has this facial recognition ability, try to turn it off.

Usually, this is a basic component of the autofocus function, and you will need to disable it. However, many cameras today also have various preset settings that you can also use that will disable this facial recognition software, such as scenic view or distant view. There are many names for these various settings, and the autofocus parameters will give you a different focus perspective, but at least you will not be seeing Bigfoot faces in the shadows. Maybe.

There are some other aspects that also need to be covered here, such as the terms pareidolia and simulacra, and we'll get into these phenomenon next time. 

Bigfoot Faces in the Dark

There are a good many Bigfooters out there that have yet to see a real live, in the flesh Sasquatch, in spite of their earnest desire to have an encounter of their own. The vast majority of the worlds population will never even have an encounter. Those of us that have had an encounter usually have it as a matter of chance.

Perhaps we had never even heard of Bigfoot before, and saw a strange looking animal on the roadside, unsure of what we were seeing, and to a point even disbelieving the event. After all, for most of us, we don't even know what a Bigfoot looks like. But when we have that first encounter, and finally come to the realization that it was real, and we really did see something that is considered to be a cryptid life form, we become hooked for life.

Sometimes it takes years for us to really get into the meat of the subject for varying reasons, but sooner or later, we do, and we start spending more and more time in the woods searching for this elusive hairy man of the woods. But we often feel the need to share our experiences, and so we start buying equipment. Rudimentary efforts usually start with a cell phone. Maybe we splurge and get that fancy fifty dollar digital camera that does both still shots and videos.

But no matter the pathway you take, all roads lead to the necessity of sharing your time in the woods in a pictorial manner. This is a good thing because it provides a platform with which to share evidence by way of visual data This data is easy to share, inexpensive, for the most part, and can be transferred from person to person easily over the internet. But there are problems that arise with the use of this newer digital technology.

In the days of celluloid film imagery, the film had to be developed, and took days to mail to other researchers instead of through the seemingly instantaneous process we use today. But the imagery we obtained as evidence in those days was much more secure, and much more valid than todays digital files are. The biggest reason the Patterson-Gimlin film of Patty the Bigfoot has retained such authority is because it is in fact a celluloid production. The pictures we see in the film are just that, a series of optical images that in its original state, cannot be mistaken for anything other than what it is. And that is a bipedal creature covered with hair, apparently female, striding into the woods beside a river.

Of course, there is much argument and speculation over what that creature is, and whether it is a real animal, or a man in a suit. But we cannot argue that the film does indeed  show a bipedal creature walking away from Roger Patterson as he films it. It is unquestionably a real film.

We can fast forward through the decades intervening between that day in 1967 to today, and observe the rapid growth of available Bigfoot imagery, and we can also observe the rapid growth of the plethora of Bigfoot imagery that isn't. And that, in itself, is where the greater part of dissension in the greater Bigfoot community lies. The now perennial question of; is it a Bigfoot, or isn't it?

That's the problem with Bigfoot hunting today. We present pictorial evidence, but the vast majority of these pictures and video become discredited, outright rejected, manipulated, and turned into so much rubbish. After all, if we see a Bigfoot in the brush, and take a picture of it, shouldn't everyone else see the same Bigfoot in the brush? I mean, it's right there behind that bush, you can plainly see its leg sticking out. Um..., yeah, sure it is. And that Bigfoot is sitting on a pink unicorn too.

Why is it that we can take a picture of a Bigfoot and not have anyone else see it in our photograph or video? That's a good question, and we'll tackle that in our next Bigfoot Tales blog post.


This is a picture I took of something I saw while on a Bigfoot excursion. I have circled the area and placed an arrow to point out the thing I saw for you.

 

 

This following image is a blown up section of that area in the red circle. In it you can almost make out the image of what looks like a person, with its left arm sort of bent over its front abdomen area. Is this a Bigfoot? No, it is not. What is it? Well, tune in next time to find out.

 

 

Until then, thanks for watchin', and keep on Squatchin'!

A Lumbercamp Bigfoot Kill

This story is a fictionalized story from one of C.A. Stevens' young adult series, The Knockabout Club, written in the latter half of the 19th century. This one in particular is from the book title The Adventures of Six Young Men in the Woods of Maine. Rather a long title, but that seems to be normal for those days. The book describes the journey of six young men as they travel through the backwoods of Maine into Canada and back into the Aroostook region with a guide named Nugent.

At one particular place, and old abandoned lumber camp, they decide to camp for the night, and Nugent tells them the tale of why the camp was considered to be haunted. The story was subtitled, the Woods Demon. In a nutshell, back in the early 1800s a lumber crew of twenty plus men were there one winter, and had some problems with not a four legged critter, but a two legged one. While the story itself was presented as pure fiction by Stevens, I can't help but wonder if this not really a story telling of an actual Bigfoot encounter, resulting in the creatures death.

Stevens describes the woods demon as being bipedal, giant in size, covered with hair, the hair on its head being pulled into a frightful tuft, which could have been a way to describe a coned shape or sagittal crest, brown skinned, strong enough to wrench a log door held together by clinched spikes, and unable to communicate with speech, although it uttered garbled sounds.

Not your normal human being in any way, is it? Here they were, in the dead of winter, and this bipedal, manlike creature was about with no clothes save a loosely wrapped bearskin and skins tied around its feet. At that time of year it can get to 40 below on some nights.

So, enjoy the video, and come to your own conclusions, as always, and don't forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel for more Bigfoot Tales.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5-xSZM4PLA&list=UU2SWNa9SF0eogNXDISPdKNg&feature=share