Figure 4. Field journal entries should be accurate, informative, and succinct.
PART
II
PROTOCOLS
“Do try to be sensible; it is not a particular sign of superiority to talk like a fool.”—Maud C. Cooke, Social Etiquette or Manners and Customs of Polite Society
AFTER STUDYING THE FIRST PART of this book, you should know as much as anyone about the legend, lore, past alleged run-ins, and presumed next of kin of the Sasquatch. The next step is to prepare yourself—and your expedition team—for a trip into the wilderness. Now it’s your turn to contribute to our understanding of this elusive being.
I encourage you to head outdoors in search of the Sasquatch, or at least in search of scientific evidence of its existence. Once you have gathered your notes and materials, in keeping with the methods of citizen science, you’ll want to share your observations about the Sasquatch—where it lives, what it eats, and how it births and raises its young. That information could easily be fleshed out formally as a paper in a scientific journal or an article on a popular science website or in a magazine or posted online informally as a blog entry or a note on the Sasquatch Seeker’s Field Manual website (http://davidgeorgegordon.com/sasquatch/). Along the way, you may find yourself formulating a hypothesis to describe one of the great mysteries of the Sasquatch: how it has successfully avoided detection by humans for so many, many years.
Your observations could result in our formally recognizing the Sasquatch as a legitimate biological entity. They could also reveal that there is no such thing as the Sasquatch, that what we’ve been seeing is really a bear. Either way, your contributions will be priceless, especially if they have been obtained with care, using standard scientific procedures. Only then will they be worth sharing with other citizen scientists and, when sorted, evaluated, and summarized, with the scientific community at large.
That’s what this second part is about: ways to gather fresh evidence—indisputable proof that the Sasquatch does or does not exist.
An effective Sasquatch-seeking effort will require the three Ps—planning, persistence, and patience. Even when it focuses on these, it’s entirely possible that an individual or team in search of the Big Guy will come up empty-handed. If this happens, don’t be discouraged. It’s not like we’re going on a fishing trip. As far as we know, the subject of our search is endowed with finely tuned senses and a fairly high intellect. It’s not at all unusual for large-sized animals like this to evade their would-be observers. In Southeast Asia, biologists trailing the Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) have spent years in the very jungles where this shy and retiring rhino lives, without actually catching a glimpse of one.
Closer to home, the equally elusive grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) has extended its southern range, moving down from British Columbia and crossing the border into Washington State. To find out how many grizzlies had already made this move, state wildlife officials sent some of their best biologists into the mountains in search of bears. You would assume that a grizzly bear, like the Sumatran rhino, would be pretty easy to find. After all, we’re talking about a mammal that can weigh about 800 pounds and stand nearly ten feet tall. Well, think again. The biologists found all sorts of secondary signs: claw marks on trees, footprints in mud, bits of fur, feces, and so on. But in five years of fieldwork, they never laid eyes on a single grizzly.
So enough with the buzz-killing talk. Suffice it to say that searching for the Sasquatch can be difficult and, at times, unrewarding work. However, if you can use the search as an excuse to visit the Pacific Northwest’s state and provincial parks and national forest lands, the experience, whether fruitful or not, will still be fulfilling. Every time I immerse myself in nature, when I let myself relax and take in the myriad signals—the sights, sounds, and scents of the forest ecosystem—I am soon refreshed. It is my wish that as a well-trained Sasquatch seeker, you will have ample opportunities to enjoy this kind of peace.
It’s possible to perform all the info-gathering tasks described in this book by yourself. However, it’s advisable to include at least one other person to join you on your outings. Don’t get me wrong—it’s not because of the danger posed by an enraged adult male Sasquatch defending its territory or its young (see Sasquatch Aggression sidebar, below). Rather, a partner can bring an extra set of eyes and ears into play, finding signs of the Sasquatch that you may overlook by yourself. As important, a companion can also provide backup support, helping you return to the base camp in the event of an ankle sprain or taking emergency measures if the injury is more severe. If that’s not enough reason, one or more people who are on the trip with you can serve as corroborating witnesses, testifying on your behalf that a brush with a Sasquatch did occur, just like you said it did.
It is always wise to choose fellow expedition members with care. Avoid overly talkative, excitable types who are prone to exaggeration or, worse yet, are adept at bending the truth. Look for individuals with positive attitudes, firm ethics, clear senses of purpose, and plenty of common sense.
A two-person team may be fine for a day trip, but for longer excursions, it’ll be necessary to include a bigger crew. On these extended outings, individuals may be assigned specific roles—medic, cook, records keeper, scout, and so forth—to ensure that all expedition functions are performed with expertise.
SASQUATCH AGGRESSION
There is actually no authenticated evidence of an unprovoked attack by a Sasquatch on a human being. For the most part, stories of battles between man and man-beast are crusty and unconfirmed. One such classic is attributed to none other than President Theodore Roosevelt. Written in 1893, his book The Wilderness Hunter includes the purportedly true tale of an attack on two hunter-trappers by a hairy Sasquatch-like monster. One of the men was killed in the struggle, according to Roosevelt. The other fled the scene, rifle in hand.
Even harder to believe is the narrative of José Mariano Mozino, a naturalist traveling with explorer Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra in 1792. Sharing his observations about life in what is now known as British Columbia, he wrote of “inhabitants of the mountainous country of whom all have an unspeakable terror.” Spookier than Freddy Krueger, “His howls fell to the ground those who hear them, and he smashes into a thousand pieces the unfortunate on whom a blow of his hands falls,” Moziño maintained. Hyperbole? Perhaps.
That said, it’s still a wise move to be careful around Sasquatches. Anything that big and strong, especially when put into a fight-or-flight situation, warrants extra caution. If you happen to cross paths with one, treat it with the same wary respect that you would accord a black bear (Ursus americanus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), or any other potentially dangerous wild animal.
Keep a safe distance to avoid encroaching on its territory, and refrain from making any hand gestures or facial expressions that could be construed as threatening or defensive. For example, raising your arms above the head, inadvertently making yourself bigger than your new acquaintance, can be perceived by primates as a threat. Likewise, looking directly into another primate’s eyes may come across as a challenge. Maybe this is why the Sasquatch is said to have hypnotic powers in several Native American tales—it’s an indirect way of saying, “Don’t stare at a Sasquatch.” Similarly, a broad smile may be misconstrued as a grimace, suggesting to the Sasquatch that you are very afraid of it. Under no circumstances should you reach for a stick or anything else that might be confused for a weapon. And remember, it is unethical, and unlawful in at least one Northwest county, to shoot one. Since it is unlikely that you would be able to outrun a Sasquatch or best one in hand-to-hand combat, the safest tactic may be to hold your ground and wait for your new acquaintance to move on.
Another person to consider adding to your team is a person who can serve as the team’s scientific advisor. At minimum, this person should be knowledgeable about the principles of general biology. She or he should also understand the basic “rules of the road” for gathering credible evidence, evaluating it, and presenting conclusions, for discussion and, ideally, acceptance, to others whose opinions count.
Recruiting such a person may be more difficult than it might seem. In general, established scientists and academicians may be wary of allying themselves with people who their peers have deemed unprofessional or eccentric. And believe me, within existing Sasquatch-seeking circles there are plenty of people who are unprofessional or eccentric, or both. Scientists may be fearful of jeopardizing their hard-earned reputations, while academics might fret about being denied tenured teaching positions because of their unorthodox beliefs. In either instance, gaining their trust may be an uphill battle at best.
It’s also important to recognize that most scientists and scholars are extremely busy. Like babysitters, the best ones are often unavailable—if they’re sitting around waiting for the phone to ring, how good can they really be? Plus their schedules may revolve around unyielding grant-funded research deadlines. Such commitments are often etched in stone years in advance, so getting one of these time-crunched individuals to respond to your emails or telephone messages can be nigh on impossible.
Thankfully, this is not always the case. While conducting research for this book, I spoke with several professors at major academic institutions who rose to the occasion and freely shared their expertise with me. Once you’ve gotten a foot in the door, so to speak, you may succeed in convincing such a person to help with your citizen science project. After you have gained their trust, this helpful soul may agree initially to serve as an informal advisor, reviewing your expedition’s data-gathering plan. Later, once you have demonstrated your team’s ability to collect new information that can withstand scientific review, your advisor may offer to help write, edit, and submit your findings to a scientific journal. He or she might eventually share laboratory equipment or even agree to participate as a team member on an upcoming trip.
In any Sasquatch search, your safety and that of your team members must always be a prime concern. Whether embarking on a day hike or a week-long wilderness trek, don’t leave home without the Ten Essentials, the minimum for guaranteeing the well-being of each person, in the event that things don’t go as planned.
The Ten Essentials according to the systems approach developed by The Mountaineers are:
1.Navigation (map and compass)
2.Sun protection (sunglasses and sunscreen)
3.Insulation (extra clothing)
4.Illumination (headlamp or flashlight)
5.First-aid supplies (including a whistle or signal mirror)
6.Fire (firestarter and matches or a lighter)
7.Repair kit and tools (including knife)
8.Nutrition (extra food)
9.Hydration (extra water)
10.Emergency shelter (tarp, tent, or bivy sack)
Other items may not qualify as essential; nonetheless, they will vastly improve the chances of achieving a Sasquatch expedition’s express goal.
1.Field journal notes and data-gathering forms
2.Still or video camera
3.Audio recorder
4.Handheld GPS device
5.Binoculars and magnifying glass
6.Fifty-foot and ten-foot tape measures or yardstick
7.Plastic, resealable food-storage bags (several sizes)
8.Rubber gloves and lightweight disposable cotton gloves
9.Letter-sized envelopes
10.Tweezers
11.Casting medium, mixing cups, and tools; or cans of aerosol foam and cardboard
12.Nonreactive plastic jars
13.Ethanol
14.Plastic trash bags
15.Harmonica
That may seem like a lot of stuff, but by bringing along a full-featured smartphone, the first four items can be removed from the list. Still, if you intend to make higher quality audio recordings or take digital photos or videos of subjects at a distance of more than six feet, the capabilities of a smartphone may be insufficient. Battery life can also be an issue. If you’re outside of cell phone range, set your smartphone to “satellite” mode. For outings longer than twenty-four hours, one or more storage batteries may also be needed for backup power.
The items on this second list can easily fit in a medium-sized backpack or, with some spatial planning skills, a couple of day packs (yet another good reason to travel with a companion—two day packs). Most of them will be familiar to you, but a few require explanation. The value of trash bags, for instance, is vastly underrated: They can help you have a noimpact wilderness experience. Just as important, they allow you to clean up after less considerate adventurers, stashing their litter until it can be properly disposed of elsewhere. Guidance on casting materials and the related accessories for making an impression of a footprint cast can be found later in this chapter, in Making a Footprint Cast. Suggestions for capturing Sasquatch vocalizations and other sounds are in Capturing Sounds. The rubber gloves are for picking up Sasquatch scat (see Collecting Scat).
The harmonica? You’ll have to read the following section, Tips to Improve Your Odds, to learn more.
Of course, for extended trips, you’ll also need to bring the usual supplies—a tent, sleeping bag, air mattress or pad, cookware, tarp, and any home comforts, including this book. An abundance of advice about enjoying the outdoors can be found in print and online, so let’s move on and discuss the data-gathering activities you’ll engage in during your expedition.
Finding a Sasquatch or its signs appears to be largely a matter of luck, even for people who’ve made a life’s work of it. For instance, the team from Finding Bigfoot has had a few near misses but little else, even after several successive seasons in hot pursuit. On the other hand, there are many examples of people like Matthew Johnson, a licensed psychologist from Grants Pass, Oregon, who, without intending to, nearly urinated on a Sasquatch while hiking with his family one summer afternoon (see Oregon Caves National Monument, Oregon, in Part III). Indeed, the majority of eyewitness accounts begin with someone walking in the forest or driving their car on a lonely stretch of road, minding their own business, when they were lucky enough to be given a good look at the wild man of the woods in all his primal glory. With this in mind, I confess that it’s beyond the scope of this field manual to offer exact and in-depth instructions for locating a Sasquatch in its natural habitat.
That said, there are several ways to improve your chances while Sasquatch seeking. The first is to look online for areas with a history of human and hominid interactions. Several websites maintain comprehensive databases with recent sightings or so-called footprint incidents, and these can offer hints about where to begin looking for additional clues. Likewise, a simple web search for “recent Bigfoot sightings” can yield several prime suggestions for places worthy of further investigation on foot. See the Resources in the back of this book for a list of the most prominent Sasquatch websites.
Identifying the trends in prior sighting reports can also point you to prime Sasquatch-seeking locales. A high number of sightings have taken place near hot springs, in cleared areas around power transmission lines, and in proximity of large caves. The logic is that these places provide sources of food, shelter, and heat for these large and presumably warm-blooded beings.
“Powerlines represent one of the few places that sunlight reaches the forest floor and, therefore, gives rise to highly nutritious plants that deer and other herbivores need to survive,” says Cliff Barackman of the Finding Bigfoot team. I’m prone to believe him. Barackman and his peers also posit that Sasquatches, like many other primates, live in small family groups and are territorial, actively defending home ranges that may extend over hundreds of miles. If true, this could make choosing a good starting point for mounting your Sasquatch expedition somewhat easier, especially where a succession of prior sightings can help to delineate the boundaries of a family’s home turf.
One strategy for locating Sasquatches involves keeping on the move to cover as much ground as possible. Loop trails are extremely well suited for this kind of a search, as are backcountry bicycle and equestrian trails. A second approach is to establish a base camp from which a series of gradually larger sweeps of the vicinity can be made. Of this tactic, Robert W. Morgan’s Bigfoot Observer’s Field Manual maintains:
I like to make ever-widening concentric circles around my campsites to discover the most logical direction they might choose for a visit. I am usually wrong, but it keeps me thinking. Behave normally. Do not try to sneak up on the Forest Giants. Walk casually enough to allow your own observations but don’t bother trying to sneak around because your actions may remind them of hunters and put them on guard. If your routine seems predictable and safe, they may eventually follow you back to your camp.
While you’re at camp, Morgan suggests practicing yoga, pressing flowers, playing a guitar, and—yes—serenading yourself with a harmonica to create what he calls “a provocative routine” that will lure a naturally curious Sasquatch within range. Taking photos of wildflowers or scenery is a bad idea, he claims, as the shiny black housing and lens of a camera may resemble a hunter’s rifle and scare away any nonhuman visitors.
Morgan also recommends that Sasquatch seekers maintain a degree of secrecy about the purpose of their day hikes or campouts. Rather than arousing curiosity and attracting onlookers who can get in the way of your quest, he advises that individuals explain to gas station attendants, shopkeepers, park rangers, and others that they are amateur wildlife photographers looking for some unusual shots. “You are not lying,” he says, “so you can look them straight in the eye. And if they ask exactly what wildlife, tell them anything that you come across.”
People who think that Sasquatch seeking will be all thrills and fun may be surprised by the next few topics I cover. Admittedly, the excitement of the hunt can be great, whereas taking the time to thoroughly document your recent observations is considerably less dramatic. Nonetheless, it’s your attempts to capture the details of this adventure—where you went, who you went with, what you heard, smelled, found, and saw—that will serve as the measure of your success or failure in the long run. Your records will be your legacy. If you want to enjoy the outdoors, hone your observation skills, and practice the techniques of field biologists, forensics specialists, and cryptozoologists, the following sections will help guide you on your way.
Figure 4. Field journal entries should be accurate, informative, and succinct.
Field notes are a time-honored practice in the biological sciences, predating the camera and other mechanical devices for establishing the scene. Accompanied by drawings, preserved specimens, pressed plants, and other forms of supporting evidence, field notes have been sufficient to establish the existence of thousands of plants and animals over the past four centuries. Compiled into journals and reproduced in print, the field notes of naturalists such as David Thompson, Alfred Russel Wallace, John James Audubon, Edward O. Wilson, and Charles Darwin have been instrumental in opening our eyes to previously unknown species throughout the world.
In this light, your field notes about the Sasquatch and its environs could be the single most important outcome of your expedition. As written chronicles, they will inform others about your attempts to find the Sasquatch, and tell them things about this being that they may never have heard before. As a guidebook, your collection of reports can assist others who may follow your lead, retracing your footsteps (and those of the Sasquatch) to reach the places where further information can be acquired. At its very least, your field notes can bring joy to cryptozoologists and other readers, enabling them to live through your expedition’s highlights and low spots, vicariously, in the manner of the adventure travel genre—all thanks to your diligent efforts to put pen to paper.
Field notes should be written on the spot, usually but not always by hand, in indelible ink on durable (waterproof) paper. Many Sasquatch seekers favor a fine-point Sharpie for this purpose. It’s a good idea to carry several of these with you, in case one becomes fouled or runs out of ink. For all entries, be as specific as possible. There’s no such thing as being overly detailed. A person’s memory is far from infallible—what’s not committed to paper is likely to fade away and vanish over time.
At minimum, field entries should
TIPS FOR TAKING FIELD NOTES
As scientists say, “Seeing is not observing.” The former comes naturally, but the latter takes discipline and training. Hone your abilities to make observations and to preserve them for later retrieval and study. The following tips will help you become a better field-note taker.
On an outing, carry extra notebooks and writing implements. If your original notebook is damaged or lost, be prepared to rewrite from memory, using a replacement notebook. Although not ideal, this stand-in is better than nothing at all.
Field notes should be usable and understandable by others. Strive to write legibly, even under duress. If writing in shorthand or using nonstandard abbreviations or symbols, be sure to include an explanatory key so that others (and for that matter, you) can easily decipher what you wrote.
Practice taking notes at home before making observations in the field. This will help you develop your own style of transcribing what you are seeing with speed and accuracy. Think about how you will organize your observation—for instance, chronologically or by topic. Notes that are disorganized will make it more difficult to interpret your findings.
Cultivate the habit of “interrogating the environment.” As you survey your surroundings, ask yourself direct questions: What plants or animals am I seeing? What changes can I detect? What could explain those changes? What is my role in this?
Detailed drawings of sites and observable activities are invaluable aids. Practice before an outing by making a series of sketches of your home’s living room, bedroom, or kitchen. Try sketching your friends or family members as they conduct their daily chores. See how quickly you capture the essential information on paper.
When reviewing your field notes, use color-coded pencils or markers to highlight the most important details. This tactic will help focus your attention, separating the most important information from any extraneous details.
When you get back from your trip, recopy any field notes into a notebook, diary, or journal set aside for this express purpose. Rewriting your notes this way will allow others to peruse chronologically what you have recorded. Under no circumstances should you discard the original field notes. You may need these to verify any details that are disputed at a later date.
MAINTAINING A CHAIN OF CUSTODY
All evidence—hair and scat samples, footprint casts, skeletal remains, and so on—must be collected and stored following standard procedures to ensure its integrity is not compromised. The protocols for maintaining a chain of custody will help establish that the evidence presented for study has not been accidentally or intentionally tampered with. The greater the chances that evidence has been altered by tampering, the less likely it is to be accepted by the scientific community. Thus, any evidence must be stored and handled with care.
Mold and mildew are especially harmful to organic materials. So are the oils, bacteria, and fragments of flaked skin that are usually present on human hands; these can seriously contaminate any samples for DNA testing, leading to the production of false results. For this reason, it’s wise to wear lightweight disposable cotton gloves when handling samples in the field or at home.
As important, do not allow the evidence out of your possession until you can hand it over to an equally responsible person. To prove that you have monitored it properly, adequate records must be kept to establish this transfer of ownership. Documentation of such transfers—as a sample moves from the person who acquired it to subsequent examiners, to laboratory technicians, and so on—is called chain of custody. Plainly stated, all evidence must be in the possession of an identifiable person who can testify that he or she received it in a given condition at a given time from someone else or from the site where it was collected, and a paper trail that details these facts must be maintained. If this chain of custody cannot be arranged for beforehand, it is unwise to let the evidence out of your possession.
It’s common for evidence to be tagged in a fashion that can demonstrate
Note that we’re not talking about the use of a fancy form here. A number five (4¾ inch x 2⅜ inch) manila shipping tag, obtainable at most office supply stores, is ideal for this purpose. Affix the wire fastener on one of these tags to your material in a way that will not damage or alter the sample. Remember to update the information every time the sample changes hands. By following this procedure, you will have established a chain of custody and helped to pacify any scientists with nagging doubts about the authenticity of this particular piece of evidence.
Figure 5. Sample evidence tag for establishing the chain of custody
Good visual images of the Sasquatch are as rare as hen’s teeth. Only a handful of still photographs and video recordings have been taken by seekers in the past, and many of these are brief, blurry, or both. Some of the best have been viewed repeatedly in hopes of gaining deeper insights into the nature of this being.
Unfortunately, films, videotapes, and digital files are all relatively easy to manipulate, making them appealing tools for the perpetrators of hoaxes. For this reason, experts must carefully examine them before they can be accepted as anything but fakes. Nearly fifty years after the now-familiar Patterson-Gimlin footage of Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, California (described in A Portrait of the Sasquatch, in Part I), was shared, experts are still in disagreement over its authenticity. There is uncertainty about the speed at which the film was taken, and several broken links in the chain of custody raise questions about how the raw footage was processed and passed from hand to hand (for more, see the Bluff Creek Blunders sidebar in Part III).
These deficits make it one of the most enigmatic (and some would say dubious) pieces of evidence that we have gathered to date. After round upon round of detailed analysis, the best that can be said of this footage is that no viewer has been able to find what many have called “the zipper in the suit.” That’s faint praise for what most people regard as the strongest visual proof of the Sasquatch’s presence in the Northwest.
Hypothetically, the availability of digital cameras and lightweight video recorders should make it much easier to get the goods on the Sasquatch. After all, you’d think that the time-honored excuse—that the camera was out of film—would now be invalid. Still, one must have the presence of mind to start capturing images under duress. Plus, there’s the issue of limited battery life to further confound any documentarist’s efforts. Sasquatch seekers are well advised to regularly recharge their equipment and, for long excursions, to carry extra batteries.
Katie Campbell is a multimedia journalist with EarthFix, a national public radio and television project covering environmental issues in the Northwest. Her subjects have included tribal canoeists, migrating salmon, the deadly Oso mudslide, and the removal of the Elwha Dam. These assignments have helped Campbell develop what she refers to as her sixth sense—the ability to lock in on the quintessential video moment a microsecond before it occurs.
The trick, says Campbell, is to be ready and steady. “Every minute counts, so you don’t want to waste time fumbling through your gear,” she says. “On the trail, your camera should never be in a day pack or backpack. Keep it in your hands or hanging from a strap around your neck.”
Should you stumble across a Sasquatch, keep in mind this bit of practical advice from Campbell: “Take a few seconds to calm yourself,” she says. “I usually take a few deep breaths. Then, when you’re ready to hit ‘record,’ hold your breath and think of your body as a tripod—tuck in your elbows, holding your arms close to your body, and either kneel or lean against a tree.”
To prepare for that big moment, Campbell also recommends that would-be videographers train themselves to shoot in distracting situations, such as sporting events or outdoor festivals. They should also take the time to learn their particular recorder’s capabilities. In terms of reliability and affordability (from about three hundred to six hundred dollars), Campbell favors any of the Sony Handycam recorders or any of their other lightweight models that offer image stabilization, which enables the user to zoom while keeping the subject in focus.
Professional trackers theorize that the Sasquatch is especially adroit at staying out of sight—avoiding established hiking trails and game paths through the brush. They can see you well before you are aware of them, the trackers suggest. Therefore, some recommend using what are known as trail cameras—electronic devices that can be preset to operate remotely, gathering visual images when no human is around. Hunters commonly use these handy pieces of gear, often as part of a network of trail cameras, to gather information about the abundance of deer or other targeted prey. Some of these cameras come with remotely operated flashes or infrared systems for night photography. Others can transmit digital images directly to a computer, facilitating real-time monitoring of Sasquatch habitats.
Do they work? The internet is full of photos of supposed Sasquatches, taken surreptitiously by strategically placed trail cams. Alas, many of these are misidentifications of other animals such as bears or wild dogs. Like the Patterson-Gimlin footage, they must be viewed with healthy skepticism and an eye for the finest details.
Whoops, howls, screams, and streams of gibberish—these sounds and more have been attributed to the Sasquatch. Many have been recorded and uploaded as MP3 files on the internet, along with commentaries describing the circumstances under which they were captured.
Among the most widely shared of these are audiotapes made by Ron Moorehead, a self-professed “adventurist, Bigfoot/Sasquatch researcher and entrepreneur.” Moorehead released two CDs of supposed Sasquatch sounds that he and his companions first heard in the 1970s while at an outpost in a remote part of the Sierra Nevada of California. He believes that Sasquatches communicate using a fairly advanced form of language, poorly understood by humans. Other Sasquatch seekers maintain that their quarry communicates without vocalizations, loudly thumping on tree trunks to attract the attention of others of their own kind instead.
The problem is there’s no way of verifying the authenticity of any of these recordings or oral reports. “I’ve spent a bit of time reviewing some of the acoustic ‘evidence’ a few groups have offered as proof of Bigfoot and found nothing of consequence other than bad attempts at falsification,” Bernie Krause, a leading authority on animal sound recordings, informed me by email. Through his San Francisco firm Wild Sanctuary, Krause travels the world to record, archive, study, and share the sounds of the natural world. “Unless something considerably more substantial can be found, you’ll need to count me in the highly skeptical camp,” he confesses.
A second bioacoustics expert, Gordon Hempton of Indianola, Washington, told me by telephone that he also rules out most of the existing recordings he’s reviewed. However, he suspects that the majority are not intentional fakes, merely misidentifications of other animals’ sounds. To avoid any further gaffs, he advises would-be Sasquatch sound engineers to become well acquainted with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Macaulay Library online. At this site, you can gain access to the world’s largest collection of wildlife audio (and video) recordings—the digitized sounds of more than one hundred seventy-five thousand species of invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Want to hear the cry of the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) or the American black bear? As a Sasquatch seeker, you may find these cries quite fascinating. Both are remarkably similar in tonal quality to some of the most convincing Sasquatch recordings—and both are available through the Macaulay Library’s website.
Validating an audio recording is nearly impossible, according to Hempton. “Putting a time stamp on a recording doesn’t mean much, because even that can be altered in postproduction,” he says. “For that matter, with all of our sophisticated technologies, it’s remarkably simple to fabricate all manner of convincing sounds.”
However, a natural-sound specialist like Hempton or Krause can tell where and when a particular piece was recorded simply by listening to what’s happening in the background. “Let’s say you have a photograph with the Eiffel Tower in the background, you’d know at a glance it was taken in Paris,” Hempton explains. “Likewise, if you’re listening to a recording and there’s the sound of a certain insect or frog in the background, you can tell right away if it’s day or night, near a creek or pond and so on.”
Although the professionals use highly sensitive microphones and expensive recorders, there’s no real need to follow in their audio footsteps. For the layperson, Seattle-based sound engineer Charles Tomaras recommends the Zoom brand of portable recorders, which run from around a hundred dollars up to four hundred dollars. Protecting your microphone from wind is especially important when dealing with nature recording as is limiting noise from handling the gear—a side effect that comes from cranking up input volumes to capture sounds at great distances. A lowtech solution to the latter problem? Find a way to mount your gear to a stick that can be staked into the ground, avoiding any need to hold the recorder when in use, Tomaras says. And be sure to get “earwitness” reports in writing as additional proof that those grunts, groans, and knocking noises were genuine Sasquatch sounds.
Bear tracks are commonly mistaken for Sasquatch footprints, and because the ranges of these animals presumably overlap, our first task is to learn to distinguish between the two to avoid misidentification issues.
A bear’s front feet are short, with rounded pads that leave pear-shaped imprints in mud or soft ground. The rear feet are nearly twice as long as the front ones, with narrow heels and insteps that leave imprints that are very much like a human’s in shape. When a bear walks, the left rear foot usually lands on the footprint made by the right front foot. To an inexperienced observer, this may give the impression of one very long print, and in his or her mind, that can only mean one thing—a Sasquatch walked here.
As long as you look closely, it’s generally easy to rule out a bear’s tracks, especially if you can isolate individual footprints as opposed to overlapping ones. The rear footprint of a black bear, the most common bear species in the Northwest, seldom exceeds six inches. The vast majority of alleged Sasquatch tracks are longer than that. Even a rear footprint of a grizzly bear is less than fourteen inches—about the same as the smallest Sasquatch tracks reported.
Figure 6. Footprint comparisons (left to right) of a human, Sasquatch, grizzly bear, and gorilla
Because a bear’s claws are nonretractable, they can leave claw marks that are easily discerned in the majority of prints; claw marks in tracks is another way to rule them out as Sasquatch footprints. An exception would be when a bear has been treading on a very hard surface, in which case the claws will not make impressions. In that case, study the toe prints. A bear’s five toes form a symmetrical arc—where the middle toe is the longest—unlike the footprints of a human or a Sasquatch. As mentioned earlier in this book, extremely large footprints with even-sized, equally spaced toes are probably fakes, left by pranksters or would-be perpetrators of hoaxes.
Now that we know what is not a Sasquatch print, here’s what to look for in one that may be real. The Sasquatch is alleged to create prints that are flat, lacking the slightest sign of an instep or arch. The ball of the foot may be creased, suggesting unusual foot flexion. Another large crease may be seen in the region of the midfoot. This crease is known as a midtarsal break and is another product of flexion, thought to result from the foot being pressed firmly into the ground; as the heel is lifted, the forefoot pushes the soil or gravel toward the heel imprint, leaving a ridge.
Scientists can learn much about an animal from the footprint it leaves behind. Baron Georges Cuvier, the father of modern paleontology wrote about this in 1834. To illustrate his point, Cuvier used the example of a cloven-hoofed creature. Its footprint would suggest that the animal was a ruminant—a mammal that feeds on plant matter, which it obtains by lowering its head, clipping leaves and grasses with its front teeth (the incisors), and chewing thoroughly with its molars. “A single track therefore tells the observer about the kind of teeth, the kind of jaws, the haunches, the shoulder, and the pelvis of an animal which passed,” Cuvier explained.
Similarly, students of primate anatomy can surmise much about the Sasquatch from a single footprint cast. They can infer even more from the study of a series of footprints, known as a trackway in biology. This trail can be interpreted to show how large the creature was, how quickly it was traveling, and whether it stopped along the way, perhaps to rest or survey its surroundings. Thus, whenever a team finds what it believes to be Sasquatch tracks, measurements should be taken of both the individual footprints and also the trackway found at a site.
The easiest way to do this is with a fifty-foot tape measure laid parallel to the trackway. A shorter tape measure can be placed near the heel of each print, perpendicular to the fifty-footer, to form a coordinate grid with an x-axis and a y-axis against which the angle of each track can be observed. For each footprint, take several photographs of this arrangement of tape measures. By photographing from different angles, using the naturally occurring patterns of light and shadows, the contours of each print can be more accurately assessed. You may need to use your camera’s flash feature or a handheld flashlight to illuminate any footprints you’ve found. Later, you can make prints of the photos. By laying out the prints, using the inch marks on the longer tape measure as a guide, a photomosaic of the trackway can be assembled and studied.
Figure 7. These common field measurements will help you analyze any footprints you find.
Because the descriptive terms for the parameters of a trackway are often poorly understood, they are defined here:
Making a Footprint Cast
Although photos can be adequate for documenting the sizes and contours of Sasquatch footprints, impressions made with casting materials can provide this information while also offering details such as depth and nuances in shape. For more visually oriented individuals, these casts may be easier to interpret—and their value as teaching tools to inspire other Sasquatch seekers is inarguable.
Numerous gypsum-based casting compounds, including Hydrocal, dental stone, and plaster of Paris, are suitable for taking track impressions. Several synthetic compounds are also available; however, they are often expensive—for example, Mold Star 16 FAST silicone, a favorite among forensics workers, costs approximately thirty dollars per unit and as many as five units may be needed to make a single impression of a large track.
Comparatively affordable (about twelve dollars for a twenty-five-pound sack) and relatively easy to acquire from hobby or craft supply stores, plaster is favored by many novice trackers. Its molecules of calcium sulfate hemihydrate bond easily with water, so it’s also easy to mix and pour. However, plaster can crumble, so any casts made with this medium must be protected from rough handling or abrasion. For this reason, many experienced trackers prefer Ultracal 30, a very strong plaster formulation that sells for under twenty dollars per twenty-pound sack. Another advantage of Ultracal 30: unlike plaster, it doesn’t expand or contract as it sets.
Materials:
Procedure (see figure 8):
1.With plastic, metal, or cardboard strips, create a circular dam around the footprint to retain the casting medium as it is poured to an appropriate depth. For large prints, use paper clips or binder clips to hold the edges of the strips together.
2.In one or more large (thirty-two-ounce) plastic cups, mix casting medium to the appropriate viscosity, following the manufacturer’s instructions (generally one part water to three parts Ultracal 30 or two parts plaster). Strive for the consistency of a thin milk shake—a thicker mix will not always capture the desired degree of detail. Stir at an even pace to avoid folding bubbles into the mixture.
3.To pour the casting medium into a footprint, hold a spatula close to the footprint, and direct the stream onto the spatula’s flat surface, thus lessening the possibility of eroding any fine detail in the delicate tracks.
4.To protect a cast from breaking, pour the plaster to a depth of two or more inches. You can increase the strength of a casting by adding twigs, grasses, or other materials to the uppermost layers of casting medium as it is being poured.
5.Wait twenty to thirty-five minutes, depending on the medium, for the cast to become firm but not completely hardened. Then, gently scratch the date, time, location, and collector’s name or initials on the exposed surface of the cast.
6.Allow the cast to fully harden. Remove the dam walls, and use a spatula to loosen the soil around the edges of the cast. With the fingers of both hands, reach underneath the cast to further loosen it from the soil, then lift carefully. Voila! The cast can be gently washed with a sponge to rid its surface of extraneous dirt. Note: If using plaster, refrain from washing the cast.
7.Place the cast in a safe but well-ventilated place, so the casting medium can continue to cure.
Figure 8. Steps for taking footprint impressions: Practice and patience will pay off with the perfect cast.
Note: Carrying a large casting kit on longer expeditions on foot may not be feasible. If you find yourself in this situation, Sasquatch scholar Jeff Meldrum recommends bringing a few cans of minimally expanding aerosol foam and several large pieces of cardboard instead. The foam comes in twelve- or sixteen-ounce cans, priced from ten to thirty dollars per can. One can contains enough foam for making impressions of one or two footprints. Spray the foam evenly over a track, placing the cardboard on top as a backing, and then put rocks on top for weight. As the foam hardens, it bonds to the backing, making a detailed model in just a few minutes.
If you find Sasquatch hair, by all means save it. But don’t make the amateur move of putting that sample in a plastic zip-close bag the way they do on CSI: Miami and other police procedurals on TV. The plastic bag will do what it’s supposed to do—retain moisture and prevent outside air from seeping in. That may be great for a tuna fish sandwich, but it’s not so good for a sample of Sasquatch hair. The plastic bag’s food-preserving attributes can also create an ideal environment for mildew, mold, and bacteria to grow. When any of these impurities get into a hair sample, they can confound DNA tests by adding their genetic signatures to the mix.
“The solution is simple,” says Scott Moody, an associate professor of evolutionary and organismic biology at Ohio University in Athens. I met Moody online and found him to be a veritable font of practical advice. “Use a paper envelope, just like you’d use to put a letter in the mail.” This method, says Moody, will protect the hair from any mechanical damage without letting unwanted moisture build up inside. Plus, you need only a pencil to write on the envelope, adding the evidentiary details and documenting the chain of custody for this item.
Moody also cautions sample collectors from picking up hair with their hands. “Now you’re introducing your own DNA and whatever bacteria is being carried by your hands.” It’s much smarter to use tweezers, he says. “A few flakes of your skin is all it takes to wreck a good sample,” he says.
DNA testing is extremely expensive. That study of thirty hair samples, described in Yikes! The Yeti in Part I, is said to have cost about forty thousand dollars—a price that was paid, in a moment of magnanimity, by the study’s principal researcher, Bryan Sykes of Oxford University. Testing a single sample of hair can run up bills in the thousands. Even then, these tests results can only tell if a sample is from an animal other than a Sasquatch; that is, it can provide a negative but not a positive result. That’s because we don’t know the sequence of genes in the Sasquatch’s DNA, and we lack a universally accepted sample on which to base a comparison. Until such a reference can be discovered, a hair sample from a possible Sasquatch can, at best, be classified as an anomalous primate—an unknown.
We know the DNA sequence for a Neanderthal, so it’s relatively simple to detect DNA from one. “I’m 2.9 percent Neanderthal,” offers Moody, who had his DNA analyzed in 2008 to establish his ancestry. Without the support of DNA tests, it is difficult though not impossible to identify a Sasquatch hair sample. Using a microscope to look closely at its structure and pigmentation, a skilled hair specialist can establish a hair’s species of origin. For an expert, it’s easier than you’d think to tell a sample of animal hair from that from a human. Our hairs are generally consistent in color and pigmentation throughout the length of the hair shaft, while animal hairs may change color radically over a short distance—a phenomenon called banding. The roots of our hair are usually club-shaped, while the roots of animal hairs are highly variable. The shape of the hair shaft is also more variable in animal hairs. If this sounds confusing, it’s because it is—a strong argument for seeking a specialist to make the final determination on whatever it is you put in that envelope and brought home from your outing.
THE PANGBOCHE HAND
Without question, DNA testing has become an invaluable ally for determining what is authentic and what is not. It recently solved a key mystery that had puzzled hominologists for the better part of a decade.
In 1958, British explorer Peter Byrne was searching for evidence of the yeti, in the high Himalaya range. While camping at the Pangboche monastery in Nepal, he learned that among the many sacred Buddhist relics was the desiccated hand of a yeti. The monks of Pangboche allowed Byrne to view the hand. However, they denied his request to borrow it for scientific study. They warned Byrne, so the story goes, that various calamities would befall the monastery if the hand were removed.
The following year, Byrne returned to Pangboche with a team of American explorers, intent on collecting some bones from the hand. In secrecy, he removed one of the fingers from the yeti hand, substituting it with the finger bones of a human. The yeti finger was then smuggled out of Nepal and into India, where Hollywood star Jimmy Stewart and his wife, Gloria, agreed to carry it to London—in Gloria’s lingerie case, no less.
Upon arrival, the three-and-a-half-inch-long finger was given to W. C. Osman Hill, a British primatologist, for analysis. Osman Hill’s determinations were somewhat ambivalent. Although he initially concluded that the bones were human, he later suggested they belonged to a Neanderthal.
Eventually, the finger wound up in London in the collections of the Hunterian Museum, part of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. There the crusty old digit sat, gathering dust until its rediscovery during cataloguing in 2008. The museum’s curators allowed a BBC documentary team to take a DNA sample of the finger, which was then analyzed by genetic experts at the Edinburgh Zoo in Scotland. The test results revealed the finger’s DNA to be of human, not yeti, origin. “Human was what we were expecting and human is what we got.” Rob Ogden, Head of Conservation Science with the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, told BBC News in 2011.
Where should you look for Sasquatch hair? Just about anywhere in the vicinity of a sighting. It seems reasonable that a being of this size and hairiness is likely to leave remnants in the patches of foliage it ambles through. Since these beings are said to conceal themselves behind large trees, it makes sense to closely inspect the trunks for patches caught in the craggy bark. James “Bobo” Fay of Finding Bigfoot says Sasquatches use telephone poles as scratching posts, leaving behind shed hair in the process. Trouble is, bears also do that. So do humans after a long day of carrying a backpack.
Much can be learned by studying an animal’s excrement, a.k.a., feces or scat. From cursory examination of this oft-odoriferous evidence, you can estimate the approximate size of a creature, establish the basics of its diet, and determine its location—where it was when it took its most recent dump.
A closer examination of an animal’s fecal matter can reveal the more intimate details. Nutshells, seed husks, insect exoskeletons, bone chips, and other indigestible remnants of past feasts are important clues to its maker’s identity. By examining Sasquatch scat, we’d know exactly what sustains it, at least during that season. Conversely, if we know what the Sasquatch eats, we can more readily recognize its scat when we see it.
We could also identify Sasquatch scat by what’s been gnawing at its insides. The presence of eggs, larvae, and adult forms of endoparasitic invertebrates—cold-blooded critters such as flukes or tapeworms—can also be used to determine whose feces is whose. These parasites are usually species-specific—in other words, the parasites that commonly live inside our pet dogs are not able to survive inside us. Incidentally, some of these internal pests are large enough to be seen with the naked eye. There are more than a thousand known species of parasitic flatworms, the largest of which is one hundred feet long and makes its home in the bowels of a whale.
In Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, noted Sasquatch scholar Jeff Meldrum tells of a presumed Sasquatch scat sample that contained eggs from a nematode worm of the genus Trichuris. Actually, three kinds of Trichuris eggs were identified, each of a different size gradient. The largest of these were “outside the range of human parasite ova,” in the words of Meldrum. However, they were still within the expected size range said to infest various other primates. That unique characteristic probably warranted further study, but the lab examiner for this project chose to pass, citing the samples’ advanced state of putrescence as sufficient reason to discontinue his analysis.
Fortunately for the finicky, such up-close and personal searches are not always needed. On the trail of a Sasquatch, it could be enough for us to rule out any feces that were obviously left by something other than whom we seek. For some informative visual images of the scat from Roosevelt elk (Cervis canadensis), brown bear, or other large animals, read Jim Halfpenny’s A Field Guide to Mammal Tracking in North America. The kinds of food a creature has eaten can also be inferred by the overall color of scat. Bear feces, for instance, can be brown, black, or bluish in hue. These colors tell us at a glance whether an individual has been dining primarily on pine nuts, raw meat, or berries, respectively.
Final study and species corroboration of scat samples are extremely difficult and, therefore, best left to trained pathologists with access to laboratory facilities. Because of this, any suspected Sasquatch scat should be carefully collected (while wearing rubber gloves) and transferred to a nonreactive plastic container. The sample can then be fully immersed in ethanol and the container tightly sealed to prevent leakage and contamination. If a source of ethanol is unavailable, 180-proof spirits such as vodka or whisky will also prevent samples from deteriorating. As always, include the essential information—date, time, place, and so on—on each evidence tag accompanying the jarred samples.
Photos and audio recordings can be undetectably altered in this, the digital, age. However, eyewitness testimony is not nearly as easy to fiddle with. That may seem improbable—after all, it’s nothing more than what someone said they saw. But if their stories are gathered and presented in the form of an affidavit—a written statement that is signed by a person who promises that the information is true—there can be almost no question of its tamper-free nature.
With this in mind, any observations made by team members, or other parties with oral statements to make, should be faithfully taken down in writing. On completion of this task, the eyewitness must be asked to sign their statement on the dotted line. The standard language that precedes the signature goes like this: “I, the undersigned, attest that the information on this page (or pages) is true.” This statement should be dated as well and initialed by the signer.
That’s it? Not exactly. It also pays to have someone witness the act of signing the document. Ideally, this person should be a notary—most banks and currency exchanges offer notary services free of charge or for a small fee. However, any individual who is willing to swear under oath that they watched as the eyewitness signed the affidavit will do. Once the affidavit is signed, it should be photocopied and stored in a secure place.
To get the facts on paper prior to signing, either interview the eyewitnesses and transcribe what they say or have the witnesses write the statements themselves, describing the events as they occurred. Regardless of method, be sure to have the eyewitnesses give their full name, age, and mailing address. You may need to gently guide the conversation to ensure that all the key points are covered and that testimony doesn’t wander off topic. At the same time, take care to avoid putting words in the eyewitnesses’ mouth. A skilled interviewer can orchestrate without intruding—a delicate dance with the eyewitness that can require considerable practice to perfect.
Even when you take these steps, there is really no way to evaluate whether the eyewitness experienced what he or she maintains. The field of cryptozoology is rife with false sightings and mistaken claims. It’s not necessarily the case that the eyewitnesses were lying. In the heat of the moment, they might have thought what they saw was a Sasquatch or an equally unsettling being.
Take the case of two grouse hunters in Sequim, Washington. In September 1965, they saw what they believed to be a monster coming out of the woods at dusk. Their reported sighting started talk of a Sasquatch-like being on the prowl. The rumors swept through Sequim like wildfire. The Sequim Press wrote that the sighting “had local children terrorized” and people were advised to stay indoors at night. Mercifully, the hubbub was short-lived. The monster was soon located and, upon closer examination, turned out to be nothing more than a weather-beaten, somewhat charred tree trunk.
TIPS FOR CONDUCTING AN EFFECTIVE INTERVIEW
Gathering eyewitness testimony can be challenging. The more you do it, the better you will become at getting the information you seek. Before interviewing a witness, it is essential to gain their trust. These tips will help you gather reliable testimony while assuring your witness that your intentions are earnest and that you have their best interests in mind.
Conduct your interview as soon as possible after a Sasquatch sighting or other relevant incident. The information you obtain before a witness has had time to embellish or self-edit their account is often the most useful.
Choose a setting with few distractions: bright lights, loud noises, or competing activities may interfere with the eyewitness' ability to focus and also serve to distract you.
Explain the interview’s purpose and how long the interview is likely to take. Ask whether the eyewitness has any questions before you begin, and answer them with honesty, brevity, and compassion.
Assure that the eyewitness testimony will be kept confidential and that you will seek their permission before sharing their information with anyone other than your project team. If their comments are to be quoted in any internal reports, get their written permission to use them this way.
Tell the eyewitness how to contact you at a later date if they want to add information or ask additional questions. Ask whether you may contact them if you need a follow-up interview.
Can you imagine going public, like the Sequim Press did, with a story about a dead tree run amok?
To guard yourself from such embarrassment, any stories, even those signed and sealed, must be regarded as testimony and nothing more. To be accepted as fact, they may need supporting evidence and corroboration by other eyewitnesses.
If this is starting to sound like a legal proceeding, it’s because determining authenticity often requires exactly that. Remember Miracle on 34th Street? It took a ruling by the New York Supreme Court to establish the existence of Santa Claus in that film.
If you’ve been following the protocols in this book, then you know how complicated it can be to collect original data that will withstand the challenges posed by others with an interest in proving or disproving the existence of the Sasquatch. After several months, perhaps years, in search of the Sasquatch, I suspect you’ll feel proud of the information you have obtained. You may also feel protective of your results—after all, you’ve paid your dues, so why should someone else get the credit for that?
A degree of wariness is a good thing, considering how easy it is for others to take your intellectual property and present it as their own. To safeguard yourself from data piracy, you may choose to keep your research under wraps, at least until you are comfortable with revealing your conclusions to fellow citizen scientists or the public at large.
During the early phases of your Sasquatch-seeking project, such secrecy may be warranted. Yes, there are people out there who aspire to solve the riddle of the Sasquatch by themselves. They may want to do this so badly that they don’t care who they steal from or who they slander along their imagined road to fortune and fame.
The existence of these types makes it imperative to choose your friends and allies in your studies with caution. If you’ve been fortunate enough to find a scientific advisor, he or she may be able to help you publish your findings in a scientific journal or report. By publishing your results, you will establish that your team was the first to address this particular topic—say, a unique feeding strategy or unusual mode of interspecies communication—or shed light on any of the dozens of unresolved questions concerning the Sasquatch’s natural history.
As mentioned earlier, your discoveries probably won’t get published and shared if you’ve chosen to work alone. Science is an iterative process, in which the contributions of an individual or team are brought forth to be built upon and enhanced, or altered and occasionally challenged by others in that field. No one person invented the space shuttle or unraveled the complex molecular structure of DNA. On the contrary, these were group achievements that could not have been accomplished by one person operating in a climate of secrecy and suspicion.
Therefore, I encourage you to follow the rules that govern the investigative sciences. As citizen scientists, I urge you to work collaboratively—publishing your hypotheses in scientific papers and posting them on websites, sharing your data with other honest and ethical Sasquatch seekers in the hopes of collectively resolving the mystery of the Sasquatch once and for all.
In this, I wish you the very best of luck.