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!
Showing posts with label hairy man of the woods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hairy man of the woods. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Monday, July 14, 2014
Romance and Reality of the Wild Man
In this video we look at an article from 1908 that looks at the then popular legends of what were called wild men of the woods. Many times the descriptions of these wild men seem rather more like what we call a Bigfoot today, and I have to wonder, home many of these wild men tales are actually encounters with the Sasquatch of North America?
Follow along as we look at and discuss the history of these sightings and the world of the search for the wild man of the woods from the turn of the century viewpoint...
Don't forget to subscribe, and visit Bigfoot Tales at Facebook, and like the page. That platform will be the place to leave comments and ask questions.
Follow along as we look at and discuss the history of these sightings and the world of the search for the wild man of the woods from the turn of the century viewpoint...
Don't forget to subscribe, and visit Bigfoot Tales at Facebook, and like the page. That platform will be the place to leave comments and ask questions.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
LIfe Cycle of the Bigfoot Legend
Does Bigfoot Exist?
Recently, there has been an uptick in the numbers of people calling foul play in the greater Bigfoot community. Why is that, some of us tend to wonder. Then there’s other folks who really don’t give a rat’s ass about it, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their stage time. And there in a nutshell is the biggest impediment to finding the answer to the question of whether there really is a creature we call Bigfoot. Stage time.
For those of you who have been following me for a while, and actually paying attention, my interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon extends to the folklore behind this so-called urban myth, not just to the modern day vagueness of the current slew of reported sightings and encounters. In my book Sasquatch; searching for the answer, I delve into the chronology of some of the phenomenon that have dotted the folklore of many nations since the beginning of written history, with special emphasis on the sea serpents bracing the early to mid nineteenth century literature. It turns out that Maine in particular, or to be more precise, Casco Bay, has quite a little history of that particular creature.
My findings of the time period mentioned is that the phenomenon of the sea serpent has much the same chronological history of the Bigfoot phenomenon we are enjoying today. in short, the life cycle of the creature ebbed and flowed in much the same way as the life cycle of this current crypto-zoological entity seems to be ebbing and flowing today. Stories of monsters an mysteries have always been present through the ages, and many of these stories keep resurfacing every so often with surprising regularity, and their life cycle follows the same pattern, century after century.
In short, the chronological histories of these creatures goes like this:
Even before that, there were other names and vague descriptions, but in the end, we have always come to the same conclusion that this mythological creature walks like a man on two feet, is covered with hair, cannot speak as we do, hides in the darkness of the forest, and sometimes is even a cannibal. For thousands of years there has always been, as Linnaeus called him, a Sylvestri hominie, or wild-man.
So, to get back to the question, does Bigfoot exist, I believe I can say with absolute certainty that yes indeed, Bigfoot does exist. Do I have proof? Not one shred, but that doesn’t really matter in the long run, because like religion, existence of this creature depends more upon faith than it does facts. There is something out there in the dark forests of the world that leaves tracks, drops piles of scat, cries in the night and creates lovely artwork with interwoven piles of sticks.
Most of the time, we can easily find an alternate attribution to the reasons these things exist, but every now and then, we come across something that makes us truly ponder the possibilities. Bigfoot does indeed exist, even if it is only in the resources of our mind, and it exists for very simple reasons.
For one thing, throughout the ages mankind has always had something to fear. There are lots of things for us to fear, but for the most part, what we fear most is the unseen. The forms that lurk in the shadows of our mind. And because we haven’t the courage to confront those shadows, we also need a hero to battle those fears. Every so often, we come across a mythology that accomplishes these two things all at once.
The wild-man of the woods, Bigfoot as we call him today, is indeed a creature that lurks in the forests of our minds, and at the same time becomes the hero we need to overcome those fears of the unknown.
Happy Squatching!
For those of you who have been following me for a while, and actually paying attention, my interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon extends to the folklore behind this so-called urban myth, not just to the modern day vagueness of the current slew of reported sightings and encounters. In my book Sasquatch; searching for the answer, I delve into the chronology of some of the phenomenon that have dotted the folklore of many nations since the beginning of written history, with special emphasis on the sea serpents bracing the early to mid nineteenth century literature. It turns out that Maine in particular, or to be more precise, Casco Bay, has quite a little history of that particular creature.
My findings of the time period mentioned is that the phenomenon of the sea serpent has much the same chronological history of the Bigfoot phenomenon we are enjoying today. in short, the life cycle of the creature ebbed and flowed in much the same way as the life cycle of this current crypto-zoological entity seems to be ebbing and flowing today. Stories of monsters an mysteries have always been present through the ages, and many of these stories keep resurfacing every so often with surprising regularity, and their life cycle follows the same pattern, century after century.
In short, the chronological histories of these creatures goes like this:
- A myth, legend, or fairy tale from a prior generation is revived, often by someone claiming to see the creature.
- The story is laughed at, and the believers are ridiculed.
- Other people show an interest, and the numbers of people involved in this creatures study or research increase.
- The believers move from the category of being lunatic fringe to “maybe there is something there.”
- Some people see the trend and decide to take advantage of an opportunity to gain easy money and reputation.
- The belief that this creatures existence becomes more widespread, involving a much wider audience.
- Aficionados and sideline believers become more intensely involved with searching for the answer, and subsequently divide into groups or categories of varied levels of belief or acceptance of the creature. These categories range from the outright skeptic to the adoring believers with an almost religious fascination to the creatures existence.
- The scientific community becomes involved, and disputes arise over the facts of this creatures existence.
- Further splits arise amongst those following the creature, resulting in diametrically opposed factions, one side only interested in empirical evidence, the other insisting they have presented the evidence but nobody believes them.
- Interest begins to wane, and the people interested in earning the fame and fortune of this creature opportunity formulate new ways of stirring up interest.
- It finally dawns on most of the believers that there really is nothing to see here and move on to another interest, usually a different mythology.
- Interest simmers, kept barely alive by a faithful few until another generation comes along and renews the cycle of the mythological creature in its many forms.
Even before that, there were other names and vague descriptions, but in the end, we have always come to the same conclusion that this mythological creature walks like a man on two feet, is covered with hair, cannot speak as we do, hides in the darkness of the forest, and sometimes is even a cannibal. For thousands of years there has always been, as Linnaeus called him, a Sylvestri hominie, or wild-man.
So, to get back to the question, does Bigfoot exist, I believe I can say with absolute certainty that yes indeed, Bigfoot does exist. Do I have proof? Not one shred, but that doesn’t really matter in the long run, because like religion, existence of this creature depends more upon faith than it does facts. There is something out there in the dark forests of the world that leaves tracks, drops piles of scat, cries in the night and creates lovely artwork with interwoven piles of sticks.
Most of the time, we can easily find an alternate attribution to the reasons these things exist, but every now and then, we come across something that makes us truly ponder the possibilities. Bigfoot does indeed exist, even if it is only in the resources of our mind, and it exists for very simple reasons.
For one thing, throughout the ages mankind has always had something to fear. There are lots of things for us to fear, but for the most part, what we fear most is the unseen. The forms that lurk in the shadows of our mind. And because we haven’t the courage to confront those shadows, we also need a hero to battle those fears. Every so often, we come across a mythology that accomplishes these two things all at once.
The wild-man of the woods, Bigfoot as we call him today, is indeed a creature that lurks in the forests of our minds, and at the same time becomes the hero we need to overcome those fears of the unknown.
Happy Squatching!
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Butte Bigfoot Exhibition
While I have titled this a Bigfoot exhibition, it was back then labeled as a "wild man" exhibition, as the term "Bigfoot" did not exist until the late 1950's time frame. Nor was it referred to as a wild ape or monkey display as at the time, the trend to label these wild men as ape-like creature still had not gained momentum. It really wasn't until Fred Becks encounter with the wild men in 1924 that the reference to the simian world took hold.
For thousands of years, wild men were always simply that; wild men. For the most part they were covered in hair, wore no clothing, and lived beyond the grip of normal society, mostly hidden in the backwoods and jungles of the world. So, when we are researching the history of this phenomenon, we are required to forget the monstorized version of this creature and look for other names. This is where research gets tricky. Mostly because not all wild men were of the sort we call Bigfoot today. And even then, the ones that do come close to a Bigfoot description were still not of the common monster(by today's terms) variety.
I'm really not certain as to the exact time frame that Bigfoot developed into the monster we consider him to be today, only that it seems to have followed the popular entertainment trends over the last 100 years or so. As the literature and theatrical presentations of this creature became more and more garish, more beastly and evil, our perception of what this creature is has likewise changed. The end result has been, of course, that instead of looking for what was once simply a wild man of the woods, we are now looking for a monstrous beast that can be over a dozen feet tall, and possesses magical abilities.
We'll continue with that thought in another blog post, but today I want to share the story of this exhibition that took place in Butte Montana back in 1895. It is an interesting story, and turns out to be true, although not quite as exciting as originally presented in the first reference I read regarding this creature.
The story, from an autobiography by James Wardner, of Wardner Idaho fame describes the exhibited subject thusly:
Certainly sounds like it fits the Bigfoot bill, although the height was a little lacking. But maybe it was a younger Bigfoot, not fully all grown up? Was this story a hoax, was it a real Bigfoot, was it just a wild man? Follow along on the video and find the answers as Bigfoot Tales shares the story of the Butte Bigfoot Exhibition...
For thousands of years, wild men were always simply that; wild men. For the most part they were covered in hair, wore no clothing, and lived beyond the grip of normal society, mostly hidden in the backwoods and jungles of the world. So, when we are researching the history of this phenomenon, we are required to forget the monstorized version of this creature and look for other names. This is where research gets tricky. Mostly because not all wild men were of the sort we call Bigfoot today. And even then, the ones that do come close to a Bigfoot description were still not of the common monster(by today's terms) variety.
I'm really not certain as to the exact time frame that Bigfoot developed into the monster we consider him to be today, only that it seems to have followed the popular entertainment trends over the last 100 years or so. As the literature and theatrical presentations of this creature became more and more garish, more beastly and evil, our perception of what this creature is has likewise changed. The end result has been, of course, that instead of looking for what was once simply a wild man of the woods, we are now looking for a monstrous beast that can be over a dozen feet tall, and possesses magical abilities.
We'll continue with that thought in another blog post, but today I want to share the story of this exhibition that took place in Butte Montana back in 1895. It is an interesting story, and turns out to be true, although not quite as exciting as originally presented in the first reference I read regarding this creature.
The story, from an autobiography by James Wardner, of Wardner Idaho fame describes the exhibited subject thusly:
This
creature was short, well built, and his body was covered with hair of the
length and shade of a black bear's. The hair of his head was in clusters and
mats as big as your hand, lying plastered on his head and dangling on his neck...he had
eyebrows fully four inches long, sticking nearly straight out, behind which
glistened as bright a pair of round, quick, glittering brown eyes as were ever
seen in ape or chimpanzee.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The First Bigfoot Hoax Prosecution
It is interesting to see the changes that have occurred over the centuries as I research this phenomenon we call Bigfoot today. Of course, we have only known this creature as "Bigfoot" since the latter 1950's, but he has been skulking around the shadows of our imagination since time immemorial. Prior to that he was commonly known as Sasquatch by some. Other peoples have had different names, but the bottom line here is that for centuries it was simply referred to as "the wild man of the woods."
Up until the latter part of the 1800's this creature was accepted as being a primitive human sort of being. Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book" began the name change when people started referring to him as a "Mowgli." Kipling's stories first ran in several newspapers as a serial column (1893-94), and Mowgli himself became a widely known character with the dissemination of these stories.
Mowgli, of course, as we all know was a fictional character that had supposedly been abandoned by his parent(s) in India, and was adopted and raised by a pack of wolves. The fascination we had with the wilderness areas of the world fueled the imagination of his readers, and the term became a somewhat popular term for any person that was considered wild, or lived outside of the norm.
Edgar Rice Burroughs further enticed the imagination with his stories of Tarzan, and his description of "ape men" was transferred onto these creatures. At the turn of the century, many fanciful tales of these creatures described them as being ape men, and so began the transformation of these sasquatch people into creatures that were now considered to be man-like apes. This unfortunate chain of events exacerbated any logical attempts to normalize these creatures into what they really were, and still are; wild men of the woods.
While they may have some characteristics in common with the gorillas of Africa, they certainly are not of a simian species. If they were, we would have little difficulty learning about them. Through the years, many have attempted to hoax the public by portraying men as wild men by exhibiting them in sideshows.
One of the most famous, Herbert Asbury, better known as "The Wild Man of Borneo" was a short-lived success. He was coated with tar and horse hair, placed in a cage and fed raw meat. His tenure only lasted a week as he became ill from being coated in such a fashion, and had to be admitted to a hospital. However, history treats us to a long list of sideshow attractions that featured these faux wild men.
Generally, people realized these were fake characters, but that did not stifle the success nor the numbers of these attractions. For the most part they were enjoyed by the willing shills who put down their nickels and dimes for admittance to the show. But occasionally, there was a rube or two that sincerely thought they were going to be entertained by a true wild man, ape man, or whatever they wished to call them
One case in particular comes to light in what may well be the worlds first hoax trial. This was reported on in some of the May, 1891 issues of the Deseret Evening News, out of Salt Lake City.
Follow along in the video as we share what well be the worlds first wild man, or Bigfoot hoax trial and learn the outcome. Believe it or not, this trial actually sets a precedence in law regarding these sorts of lawsuits, and why we don't see many of them occur even today.
The bottom line is that while these wild men, or Bigfoot today, may be displayed as an attraction, since there is no valid proof they exist, how can any reasonably intelligent person claim they were defrauded. In other words, one cannot hoax what does not exists. At any rate, enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe for more Bigfoot Tales.
Up until the latter part of the 1800's this creature was accepted as being a primitive human sort of being. Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book" began the name change when people started referring to him as a "Mowgli." Kipling's stories first ran in several newspapers as a serial column (1893-94), and Mowgli himself became a widely known character with the dissemination of these stories.
Mowgli, of course, as we all know was a fictional character that had supposedly been abandoned by his parent(s) in India, and was adopted and raised by a pack of wolves. The fascination we had with the wilderness areas of the world fueled the imagination of his readers, and the term became a somewhat popular term for any person that was considered wild, or lived outside of the norm.
Edgar Rice Burroughs further enticed the imagination with his stories of Tarzan, and his description of "ape men" was transferred onto these creatures. At the turn of the century, many fanciful tales of these creatures described them as being ape men, and so began the transformation of these sasquatch people into creatures that were now considered to be man-like apes. This unfortunate chain of events exacerbated any logical attempts to normalize these creatures into what they really were, and still are; wild men of the woods.
While they may have some characteristics in common with the gorillas of Africa, they certainly are not of a simian species. If they were, we would have little difficulty learning about them. Through the years, many have attempted to hoax the public by portraying men as wild men by exhibiting them in sideshows.
One of the most famous, Herbert Asbury, better known as "The Wild Man of Borneo" was a short-lived success. He was coated with tar and horse hair, placed in a cage and fed raw meat. His tenure only lasted a week as he became ill from being coated in such a fashion, and had to be admitted to a hospital. However, history treats us to a long list of sideshow attractions that featured these faux wild men.
Generally, people realized these were fake characters, but that did not stifle the success nor the numbers of these attractions. For the most part they were enjoyed by the willing shills who put down their nickels and dimes for admittance to the show. But occasionally, there was a rube or two that sincerely thought they were going to be entertained by a true wild man, ape man, or whatever they wished to call them
One case in particular comes to light in what may well be the worlds first hoax trial. This was reported on in some of the May, 1891 issues of the Deseret Evening News, out of Salt Lake City.
Follow along in the video as we share what well be the worlds first wild man, or Bigfoot hoax trial and learn the outcome. Believe it or not, this trial actually sets a precedence in law regarding these sorts of lawsuits, and why we don't see many of them occur even today.
The bottom line is that while these wild men, or Bigfoot today, may be displayed as an attraction, since there is no valid proof they exist, how can any reasonably intelligent person claim they were defrauded. In other words, one cannot hoax what does not exists. At any rate, enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe for more Bigfoot Tales.
The Bigfoot face Syndrome
This will be the last of my Bigfoot how-to photography series. I find myself tempted to drift far too distant from my core mission of sharing Bigfoot Tales and hunts. I'm not an instructor, never have been, and have no desire to be one. So, before I get too deeply immersed in what is wrong with Bigfoot research and photographic evidence, I'll leave you with this video I did on what I call the Bigfoot Face Syndrome.
This is an ailment that all Sasquatch hunters suffer from, some to a greater degree than others, mind you, but we all suffer from it. This ailment becomes detrimental when we let it control our research activities. Why? Because instead of looking for the truth, we allow ourselves to become dependent upon the tendency we have to cherry pick the data in front of us and choose what suits our desires.
In short, we see Bigfoot when there isn't any, and todays digital cameras only exacerbate the situation. In the following video, I share a face in the woods that I came across one day. It looked pretty cool when I first laid eyes upon it, and I could have simply kept the image and shared it as a possible Bigfoot image.
But I resisted the temptation to satisfy my urge to share my findings in favor of my deeply seated need to know the truth of the matter. I examined the situation carefully, and discovered that there was no face, only the forest. The face was fabricated in the camera by its ability to discern facial features. It is actually a pretty cool piece of video, and I hope you do learn something valuable from it.
Enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe!
http://youtu.be/HVOmjRwim00
This is an ailment that all Sasquatch hunters suffer from, some to a greater degree than others, mind you, but we all suffer from it. This ailment becomes detrimental when we let it control our research activities. Why? Because instead of looking for the truth, we allow ourselves to become dependent upon the tendency we have to cherry pick the data in front of us and choose what suits our desires.
In short, we see Bigfoot when there isn't any, and todays digital cameras only exacerbate the situation. In the following video, I share a face in the woods that I came across one day. It looked pretty cool when I first laid eyes upon it, and I could have simply kept the image and shared it as a possible Bigfoot image.
But I resisted the temptation to satisfy my urge to share my findings in favor of my deeply seated need to know the truth of the matter. I examined the situation carefully, and discovered that there was no face, only the forest. The face was fabricated in the camera by its ability to discern facial features. It is actually a pretty cool piece of video, and I hope you do learn something valuable from it.
Enjoy the video, and don't forget to subscribe!
http://youtu.be/HVOmjRwim00
Thursday, April 17, 2014
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.
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'!
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Could Bigfoot Be Human
In my latest book, Could Bigfoot Be Human, I take a concerted look at the possible human connections we may have with this creature we call Bigfoot today. Many is the theory positing what tis creature may be, with claims stretching from it being wholly human, wholly ape, some sort of "manster" or even a disembodied alien from a distant galaxy. So what is this thing that inhabits the dark recesses of the forests around us?
Nobody knows for sure, and in fact, not one person has been able to present a body, nor any other fully acceptable and definitive shred of evidence to prove this thing even exists. The human aspect is just one theory, and few people have given it any serious examination, for many reasons. The DNA puzzle is the main progenitor of controversy in this angle of research, but this is simply because we really do not have a complete grasp of what DNA is and how it works.
We think that because we share genetic material with the monkey world then we must be related, but this is sheer nonsense. DNA are the nuts and bolts of biological matter that makes the creature what it is, whether that be human, ape, or even a gerbil. DNA are a kind of signal that instructs all of the non-DNA parts of the body in how they are supposed to grow and behave. They make us look like we do, and work in the ways that we work. Nothing more than that folks. There is no magical link that proves that we are related to the monkey families. But that's an argument for another day.
Getting back to my book, I start out by examining a bit of philosophy surrounding this enigma, and look at where the legends of Bigfoot came from. The book is full of foot notes and illustrations that chronicle the legend of this creature under the many different names he has held since the early post deluge age. Nearly every culture through history has some sort of reference to what has been called, until recently, this hairy man of the woods. Sometimes wild man of the woods would suffice, but the reference always included "man of the woods" consistently describing a man or manlike creature that subsisted wholly of the sylvan world. These creatures, or people, if you will, lived, breathed, ate, drank, slept, played, and surrounded themselves in a culture of bare existence entirely reliant upon there woods skills and habitat.
Does my book prove that Bigfoot is human? Not beyond doubt, but it does lend a lot of weight to the argument. Anything bigfoot can do, we can do. They look the same as us, just a little bigger and hairier, but is that so unusual? Not really, and as evidence I look at the lines of various indigenous peoples from around the world that may share some of these same attributes.
While not wholly conclusive, and it wasn't designed to be, if you have been sitting on the fence waffling between the human or ape position, this book just may help you make the decision that Bigfoot is indeed a human, albeit a little bigger and harrier than you and I are.
Get it now at my bookstore, or shop online at Amazon of Barnes & Noble.
Could Bigfoot be Human?
By D.L. Soucy
Paperback,
208 Pages
Could Bigfoot be Human?
Nobody knows for sure, and in fact, not one person has been able to present a body, nor any other fully acceptable and definitive shred of evidence to prove this thing even exists. The human aspect is just one theory, and few people have given it any serious examination, for many reasons. The DNA puzzle is the main progenitor of controversy in this angle of research, but this is simply because we really do not have a complete grasp of what DNA is and how it works.
We think that because we share genetic material with the monkey world then we must be related, but this is sheer nonsense. DNA are the nuts and bolts of biological matter that makes the creature what it is, whether that be human, ape, or even a gerbil. DNA are a kind of signal that instructs all of the non-DNA parts of the body in how they are supposed to grow and behave. They make us look like we do, and work in the ways that we work. Nothing more than that folks. There is no magical link that proves that we are related to the monkey families. But that's an argument for another day.
Getting back to my book, I start out by examining a bit of philosophy surrounding this enigma, and look at where the legends of Bigfoot came from. The book is full of foot notes and illustrations that chronicle the legend of this creature under the many different names he has held since the early post deluge age. Nearly every culture through history has some sort of reference to what has been called, until recently, this hairy man of the woods. Sometimes wild man of the woods would suffice, but the reference always included "man of the woods" consistently describing a man or manlike creature that subsisted wholly of the sylvan world. These creatures, or people, if you will, lived, breathed, ate, drank, slept, played, and surrounded themselves in a culture of bare existence entirely reliant upon there woods skills and habitat.
Does my book prove that Bigfoot is human? Not beyond doubt, but it does lend a lot of weight to the argument. Anything bigfoot can do, we can do. They look the same as us, just a little bigger and hairier, but is that so unusual? Not really, and as evidence I look at the lines of various indigenous peoples from around the world that may share some of these same attributes.
While not wholly conclusive, and it wasn't designed to be, if you have been sitting on the fence waffling between the human or ape position, this book just may help you make the decision that Bigfoot is indeed a human, albeit a little bigger and harrier than you and I are.
Get it now at my bookstore, or shop online at Amazon of Barnes & Noble.
Could Bigfoot be Human?
By D.L. Soucy
Paperback,
208 Pages
Product Details
- ISBN: 9781304718723
- Copyright :D.L. Soucy (Standard Copyright License)
- Publisher: Bigfoot Tales
- Published: February 11, 2014
- Language: English
- Pages: 208
- Binding: Perfect-bound Paperback
- Interior Ink: Black & white
- Weight: 0.81 lbs.
- Dimensions (inches): 6 wide x 9 tall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)