All language subtitles for The Unwonted Sasquatch (2021)

- A community off
northern Vancouver Island

is at the center of
an eerie mystery.

People in Alert Bay say
they've been hearing

strange screams and howls
from the forest at night,

and the legend of the
Sasquatch runs deep

in their first nation's culture.

As CTV's Gord Kurbis reports,

some are now wondering if
those legends are real.

- We heard it once, and I
didn't get the recording,

and then second time,
I got the recording,

and that's when it
was on the back porch.

Very eerie.

The audio was
recorded just recently

on the back side of
Cormorant Island.

It's been heard by many
all over the island.

- This summer I've
heard it three times.

I've heard it
scream three times,

but it's been coming
here for years.

Whatever's
been making the noise

is heard primarily at night.

Some say it's a dog, but
others say, that's impossible.

John Bindernagel makes his
way into a forested area

on Cormorant Island,
looking for a creature

many say doesn't exist.

- It comes back to this question

that comes up in other places.

Not why is it here, or
how could it be here,

but there is evidence
that it is here.

The wildlife biologist

is one of North America's best
known Sasquatch researchers.

He's here because
many on the island

in the community of
Alert Bay are seeing

and hearing something
they can't explain.

- The vocalizations
which we really

can't attribute to wolves,
coyotes, loons, owls,

so it's in that area
of possible Sasquatch.

- While the howls and
screams that have been heard

throughout Alert Bay
could be dismissed

as simply animal noises,
you have to keep in mind

that Cormorant
Island is a location

where there is no wildlife.

There's no bears, no
cougars, not even any deer,

and while you could
dismiss the noises,

there have been
plenty of sightings.

- One person that seen it,
her father lives in Alert Bay,

and she came up to
visit her father,

so she went up to the graveyard

to pay respects to
one of her family,

and when she went
up to the graveyard,

she seen it standing there.

She turned around and she
got outta there right away.

She didn't even go
to the graveyard.

And a more recent
sighting when a group of teens

were playing soccer near
the band's big house,

a large, upright
creature moved quickly

alongside the building,
in just a few strides.

- Yeah, they took
off right away.

They don't even stay there
anymore after the dark.

- The thing that's happening now

is the dog's start
answering it, and it quits.

- I think it's more
conceivable than people think,

and more conceivable
than I used to think,

that a Sasquatch could be here,

could only be being observed
once every several years,

a fleeting glimpse,
but which is living.

Well, I could probably get
a record of its presence.

That record,
Bindernagel says,

includes large footprints
that have sometimes

been photographed in different
locations around the island.

The creature has also
been acknowledged

in the first nation's culture
for years as Zunaquas.

He knows there are many
skeptics, but he's confident

one day, the mystery
will be solved.

Gord Kurbis, CTV
News, Alert Bay.

Now, we only have
these still pictures for you.

Japanese scientists
spotted it about nine miles

east of Chichi Island
in the northern Pacific.

They say it's up to 26
feet long, look at that,

which is the length of four
Kobe Bryants, or most--

Over hundreds
of years, the giant squid

has been said to exist
by the men of the sea.

At first, the mainstream
scientific community

attacked the notion
as a manifestation

by the paranoid mind, a monster.

However today, we know
this creature to exist

because the mainstream
scientific community

found corroborated trace
evidence in whales.

The Sasquatch has
been said to exist

for over hundreds of years by
early native Canadian tribes.

This has been
corroborated by thousands

of eye witness accounts by
people across North America,

and trace evidence has often
been plentiful, but why?

Why does the mainstream
scientific community

still not acknowledge the
existence of this creature?

- This is actually
modeled after a jaw,

a fossil, that consists of
only the body of the mandible

and the teeth that it contained
of Gigantopithecus blacki.

This is an inferred
reconstruction of
Gigantopithecus,

but Gigantopithecus has
long been considered

a sort of potential
ancestor for Sasquatch.

In short, it's the right
size, and the right place,

at the right time to potentially

have expanded its
range from eastern Asia

into North America,
and maybe, in fact,

ancestral to Sasquatch.

Its cranial proportions
actually are remarkably similar

to those seen on the
Patterson-Gimlin film subject,

which provides us
a very convincing

and compelling piece of
photographic evidence.

For
thousands of years,

people from all around the world

have heard tales of encounters
with relic hominids.

In other words, people
have been stating that they

have come across ape-like
men long forgotten

or thought to have been
extinct in the deep wilderness.

In North America, the most
commonly known relic hominid

is named Sasquatch or Bigfoot.

- Well, in the mid 1930s,
a jawbone was found

in a cave in China.

And an anthropologist
looked at that

and he says, "This
is the jawbone of an
ape, of a gorilla."

Very large.

And because of the way
the jaw was spread,

he said that it also
sets on a spine,

meaning it walked upright,
it wasn't a quadruped.

They estimated that it probably

would've been eight
to 10 feet tall.

They had teeth, had
some of the teeth

still in the lower jawbone.

They found teeth, over
in China in the shops,

they were grinding 'em up,
these fossilized teeth,

and using 'em for medicine.

Very interesting,
because our continent

was connected with
China at one time.

That was the only
one at the time.

Since then, four more
jawbones have been found

between Vietnam,
India, and China,

so these things were spread
out over a long distance,

and the first one I
think they dated back

half a million years,
must've went extinct

half a million years ago.

The next one was like
300,000, then 200,000

then down to 100,000.

Every time they
find a newer one,

okay, it went extinct then.

John Green once said, "Of all
the things people describe,

they have an amazing
similarity in their description

of what they're seein',
what they could make up,

and what they're seeing."

They describe this upright,
large, bipedal ape.

- There was a huge
higher primate.

Is that
the Gigantopithecus?

- Yeah.

About three or four jawbones,

and hundreds of teeth in China.

Lived til, let's say about
100,000 years ago more or less.

There's nothing to say it
isn't still alive today.

- So now, we don't have to
make up a creature to fit it.

We have one that we
thought was extinct.

Hair samples have been found,
they've been turned in.

They call him an
unclassified primate.

They don't really have
anything to match him to.

Well, about a year or so ago,

DNA has finally
gotten to the point

they've been able to
extract DNA from a fossil.

- This is all hair,
and that's hair, yep.

Can we take this
and get it analyzed?

You betcha.

So we had
the stuff analyzed

and New York City Laboratory,

said it was just
like human hair,

but that doesn't
necessarily prove

it didn't come from Bigfoot,
a human-like creature.

- It's got to get recognized
eventually but, from DNA.

Now, they're getting
DNA from teeth

that we would've considered
would just be stone.

Since this is possible,

why on earth aren't
they studying this?

- Now because we
have hair samples

that have been called
unknown primates,

there's no classification
to put 'em to,

I am hoping they will be able
to get some of these teeth.

'Cause now we're 4,000 teeth
since the early finding

of the first jawbone
have been collected,

and I'm hoping one of
'em will be early enough

to our time, that they'll
be able to get DNA from it.

If they do, and they
could match that

to the hair samples of
this unknown primate,

then science will tell us
exactly what a Sasquatch was.

They didn't go extinct.

This is what people have
been saying for years.

On the A&E Bigfoot
special, they mentioned

that not even 1,000 years ago,

when the first Norsemen
landed in the east coast,

they were writing about
these hair-covered creatures

that would come out at night

'cause they'd caught it,

doing most of their
work mostly at night,

were stealing salmon
from the nets,

you could always tell
when they were around,

they had this smell, they're
describing a Sasquatch.

The natives along the
shoreline who can't even speak

their language at the same time,

in their folklore they're
writing about the same creature.

I find that interesting
that not 1,000 years ago,

two civilizations
in the same area

are talking about something
that could very well fit

the Sasquatch, this hairy
upright, man-like creature.

I find that very compelling.

So you
believe it's a creature

that hasn't actually
gone extinct,

co-existing with humanity
throughout our history,

probably even older
than humanity?

- Yeah, that's right, because

so many descriptions
where people

have seen 'em in
their headlights,

even police officers
in their spotlights

have claimed to have seen
'em at night on patrols.

They claim they have this
eye glow, this eye shine.

I asked the late Grover Krantz,

anthropologist from Washington.

I asked the current
anthropologist

from Idaho State
University, Jeff Meldrum,

has man ever had
nocturnal capabilities?

Would they have eye shine?

And they said there's
nothing in the record

to substantiate that
that ever happened.

I put on a monkey suit,
my eyes are still human.

They don't glow.

The Sasquatch, the light
hits its eyes, they glow

like a coyote, like a bear.

- So in addition to their
size and their hairiness,

there are a number
of other features

that distinguish
Sasquatch from humans.

If we just start at the
top and work our way

right down the anatomy,
they have a cranial capacity

it appears that would
be on par with that

of a gorilla or chimpanzee,

is appropriate for
the types of behaviors

and the lack of an archeological
record that we see.

They seem to be distinguished
by an extremely robust

chewing apparatus, the
masticatory apparatus,

which has frequently been
a point of divergence

between hominid lineages.

The grass owl versus the robust,

referring to the
chewing apparatus.

The jaws of the Sasquatch
are extremely deep,

extremely heavy,
heavily muscled,

so we the suggestion
in some descriptions

of a peaked head, resulting
form sagittal crest,

which is simply a
buttressing of bone

that provides
additional surface area

for the attachment
of very powerful
temporalis muscles here.

And the large, high
cheekbones, flaring outward

for the attachment of
the masseter muscles,

the two principle
chewing muscles

of the masticatory system.

Also, along with that, we see
a lack of projecting canines,

which, if we were envisioning
a Hollywood monster,

like King Kong, a
giant gorilla-like ape,

that's one of the hallmarks
of the large hominids,

chimps, gorillas, orangs,
is these projecting canines,

but these projecting
canines can provide

a sort of interlocking
nature to the jaws,

which prevents the
side to side motion

that is usually
associated with dentition

bearing extremely
thickly enameled teeth

for heavy chewing.

The type of dentition
you might expect

for a large omnivorous primate

in a temperate climate,
temperate forest.

We work our way
down and we come to,

well there's often
been the description

of a lack of a neck,
or no visible neck.

And that correlates
or that is associated

with the very deep jaws.

Where you have a
small brain case

coupled with very
very deep jaws.

The distance that is
traversed by those seven

cervial vertebrae is
pretty much covered up by

the very deep deep jaws.

So there is a neck, of
course there's a neck,

but it is obscured
anteriorly by the deep jaws

and posteriorly by the
massive neck muscles

that must counterbalance the
weight of that heavy face.

Our skull, if I can
grab an example here

is balanced quite nicely
over this foramen magnum

because of our enlarged
cranial area for the brain

and our reduced face, it's easy,

sometimes my students
can master the art

of falling asleep, and their
head balances quite nicely

on that, poised on that spine.

But for a gorilla, or any animal
that has much larger jaws,

projecting lower face,
and not that the Sasquatch

necessarily has
a projected face,

but the deep jaws
are much heavier

than this small cranial
space for the brain.

And so it responds to
that to balance the head

over the spine, there's
this area back here

for the attachment
of neck muscles,

neck and shoulder muscles,

so just the trapezius.

And when you look
at, for example,

the subject on the
Patterson-Gimlin film,

this trapezius forms this large,
almost cape-like structure

that flutters out to
the broad shoulders.

And so from behind there's
very little visible neck.

We work our way down and
the Sasquatch, as I said,

seems to be very massive,

not only tall, but
the mature adults

are very very broad and thick,

probably to provide
capacity for a large gut,

since their diet would
consist of a lot of roughage

as well as probably meat,

in that we think that
they're omnivorous.

If we look at their hands,

one of the
distinguishing features,

which again, correlates
well with the lack

of stone tools and
other material culture,

is a relatively
non-opposed thumb.

A divergent thumb, but one
that is not rotated 90 degrees

to provide for the precision
opposition type of grip,

which is critical for, not
only the manufacture of tools,

but the manipulation of
fine tools, cutting blades,

and so forth.

Instead, their thumb faces
relatively in the same direction

as the other digits,
and therefore,

they lack, in their handprints,

this developed fenar eminence.

The musculature that is
involved in those movements

of opposition.

Which, when they're
atrophied in the human,

are turned an ape-hand,
interestingly enough.

Of course, my interest is
focused primarily on the feet

and the footprints that
are left by those feet,

and these point to other
distinguishing features

that set this creature off
from the human condition.

These footprints are not
merely enlarged facsimiles

of the human footprint,

which is characterized by a
distinctive longitudinal arch,

which gives that footprint

its distinctive
hourglass appearance.

But instead, they're
very flat and flexible.

They have retained a degree
of mid-foot flexibility

through the transverse
tarsal joint

that is a hallmark of
the anthropoid ape,

the ape, grasp-climbing
adaptation,

characterized by a large big toe

that diverges from the others

and can grasp a vertical
support, going up,

sort of decoupling
the prehensile portion

from the propulsive
portion of the foot.

But this is also a
useful adaptation

for negotiating steep
rugged broken mountainsides

in a temperate
coniferous forest.

So even with a lack of a
strongly divergent big toe,

that flexibility then allows
for longer grasping digits

and for the powerful propulsion,

provided by the enlarged
and elongated heel bone

that seem to be characteristic
of the Sasquatch foot.

So, it's an elegant
adaptation for a large,

heavy exo-morphic
bipedal primate

that is traveling up and
down very steep and rugged

mountainous terrain.

If we return to the head region,

we can look at some
of the special senses,

and there does seem to be
evidence that Sasquatch

are nocturnal.

They're capable of
moving around at night.

Now whether they
have night vision,

whether they have a
reflecting membrane,

the tapetum lucidum,
in their eye,

which would be an
unusual sort of reversion

to a more primitive
primate condition.

Not out of the question,
but it could just simply be

a matter of their
increased body size

with eyes that have
scaled isometrically.

So all those things
together, you know,

the Sasquatch really
only resembles us

in its habit of
standing on two legs.

Beyond that, it differs
from the human condition

in almost every aspect.

And the other
things that people describe

if they've seen one,

I've heard people
describe that they have

a certain smell or odor.

- Sure.

I know it's
silly, but it's something-

- No, it's perfect naturally.

The same thing applies to
other great apes and humans

for that matter.

If we didn't have
the hygiene practices

that modern Western
people employ.

- You're lookin' over about,
oh, almost 20 kilometers

up Harrison lake, at the
20 mile point actually.

That is Long Island
out there in the lake,

the west side, and if you
look up towards, you can see

the entrance to the Silver
River Estuary right there.

It's a little obscured
by the clouds now,

but you would see
Mount Breakenridge,

which is a dormant
volcano here on the lake,

and beyond that Stokke Creek,

where that famous incident
occurred in the 1970s.

Harrison Lake is
about 40 miles long.

It's about three miles
wide at its widest point,

it's extremely deep.

And of course, it's
smack dab in the middle

of the heart of
where the Sasquatch

and the Sasquatch
legend really was born,

and is continued to this day.

- Well there seems to be a very
good ecological correlation

between credible
Sasquatch reports

and habitat type and rainfall.

If you look at a clinal
map showing 18 plus inches

of annual precipitation,
that pretty much encompasses

all of the habitat that we find
credible Sasquatch reports.

British Columbia has
that nature of habitat,

moist, wet forest.

In fact, the west coast
of British Columbia

and even inland at
the continental divide

boasts some of the largest
temperate rain forests

on the continent.

It's my personal opinion that
the temperate rain forests

were the initial core
habitat of this creature,

and they have since
spread out to occupy

much more diverse habitats,
much like the black bear.

In fact, if you look at
the range of distribution

of the black bear
in North America,

it's remarkably similar
to what we think

is a reasonable range
distribution for Sasquatch.

But if we look at the habitat
across British Columbia,

there are vast areas with
very little human population

that almost certainly
harbor Sasquatch.

In the '80s,
could researcher Grover Krantz

have set the stage for
the most credible evidence

in regards to this study?

To your right,
my left, Grover Krantz,

again, for our viewers,
professor of anthropology

at Washington State University,
author on this subject.

Tell our viewers,
what has convinced you

that yes, there is a Bigfoot?

- Well the first thing
that convinced me

was back in 1970 when
I saw and studied

a pair of footprint casts

from up in the northeastern
corner of Washington,

and this was one we refer
to now as cripple foot,

the right foot
was badly crippled

and I tried to reconstruct
the likely bone structure.

At the time, I didn't think
it was very likely even real,

but when I reconstructed it,

I found out it was
exactly the kind of design

that would be necessary for
an eight foot tall creature

with an otherwise
human body design,

and I figured nobody
could've figured this out.

And this,
you say it's the casts

that have convinced you?

- Yes, not just
that they are casts,

but in some of them I
can see some details

of anatomy that I
figured nobody else

could've plotted from nothing.

I see them in the
footprints and I figure,

if somebody faked those,
he had to know more

about human anatomy than I do,

and a more inventive
mind than mine,

and I don't think there
is anybody like that.

- Bossburg Cripple Foot.

It still remains one of
the most interesting,

I think, one of the
most interesting cases.

So here's a pair of
tracks that were cast

in Bossburg, Washington,
up near the Canadian border

in northeastern
Washington state.

This foot's quite normal, a
normal, healthy Sasquatch,

let's put it that way.

But this one shows some
remarkable pathologies to it.

It was either the result
of a crushing injury

in adulthood, or
it could've been

a neuropathy, a spinal
cord lesion, say,

that caused damage
down the nerves

to the distal features,
and then caused

the soft tissues to pull the
foot into a contorted posture.

You can see the toes are
pushed out of alignment,

and bent off at odd angles.

The third toe's
probably just simply

pushed up out of alignment
with the other toes

so that it doesn't
leave an imprint,

but really telling here are
these two bulges on this side.

Now the position of these
bulges, in a modern human,

would be way back here
on a foot of this length,

because we have a
disproportionately
shorter calcaneus.

The greatly elongated calcaneus

for greater leverage
of massive weight,

corresponding to the massive
weight of this creature,

displaces these
landmarks more distally

or further down the foot.

The possibility,
or the probability,
let's put it that way.

The probability that a
hoaxer would stumble on

a representation
of this pathology,

which, to an orthopedic
surgeon or a podiatrist,

seems quite natural.

For someone to have,
in 1972 especially,

to have concocted something
that was so convincing

and to have incorporated
this particular pathology

in a divergent location,
or an anomalous,

let's put it that way,
an anomalous location

vis-a-vis a human foot, but
in precisely the right place

for it to correspond with
the position of that joint

in other examples of
mid-foot flexibility,

it just defies imagination.

What is the name
of the famous videotape

that our viewers
are about to see?

- Okay, that's
sometimes referred to as

the Patterson-Gimlin film.

The Patterson film.

And I would ask staff
there to please roll this,

and if you would
narrate for our viewers,

and tell us, what
are we about to see?

What is this video?

There's an animal
walking through the forest

at this slightly advanced speed.

What forest, where?

In northwestern
California, Bluff Creek.

- You're talking about the
Roger Patterson film of 1967.

Documentaries talk about
that film all the time,

but they terribly mistake
the evidence as it happened.

They were down there
for nearly three weeks,

as it's been told, and
hadn't found any prints,

and one morning, Bob and
Roger went up into Bluff Creek

where they'd been before,

and they've been
all over the place.

They had to say, "Where
are we gonna go today?"

They decided to go
up into Bluff Creek

and that's when they
rounded that bend

up in Bluff Creek
on the sandbar.

There was a downfall tree,
the tree had a root system

that was standing
there, probably eight,

nine feet high as
Bob describes it.

Roger was just ahead
of him on his horse.

Bob's pullin' the pack
horse, and he's on his horse,

but he's got a
much bigger horse.

Roger rode a little
horse, I always tease

and say the size
of a great dane.

Roger was a little guy.

So anyway, Roger rounds the bend

and when he does,
his horse goes crazy,

and Roger notices
off by the creek

there's a creature squatted
there, covered with hair.

He pulls his horse down,
tries to control it.

He gets off of it, he gets his
foot hung up in the stirrup,

frees himself, and he had
his camera in the saddle bag

in case they saw tracks.

He grabs the camera,
it's one of those old

hand-wound cameras, and he
takes off running for it

and tells Bob to cover him.

The creature, by then, when
Bob come around and seen it,

when all this is going
on with Roger's horse,

it was standing.

What had happened, Roger
Patterson had an interest

in the Sasquatch for
about seven years or more.

He'd been out looking for
evidence, looking for tracks,

and gathering reports, and
then in the summer of 1967,

on Onion Mountain,
there were some tracks

that had been found.

They were building roads
at that time up through,

making a highway north
up through Bluff Creek

and on up the west coast.

So John Green went down
to see these tracks.

John Green's a local
man, lived here,

and when he got there,
the tracks had pretty much

been back bladed, and
there was only a few left.

Well, by the next
morning, when John got up

very early in the
morning, the phone rang,

and John says, obviously
on a radio phone,

the guy called and says, "What
you're lookin' for is here."

That's all he said.

John got a hold of the Sun
newspaper in Vancouver.

They put up $500
to pay for a plane

and a pilot to fly 'em down.

John got a hold of Dale Moffat,

and he brought a tracking
dog named White Lady.

They all loaded on
that small Cessna.

A guy by the name of Keith
Chazzari was the pilot.

Keith I spoke to
about a year ago,

and after all these years,
you should've heard him.

He says that it was
amazing the way the dog,

they put him on the
scent of the track

where they would still
see him just before dark.

He said, "Bill, the hair
literally stood up on its back.

That dog went into high alert.

"here was somethin' about
those tracks it did not like."

There was over 1,000 tracks
had been reported there.

They counted, I think,
560 or 70 tracks

that were still left.

Other people had been
there to see him,

some had run over
'em, stepped on 'em,

but these tracks went on
for over a mile or so.

It went off the
road, into the bush,

up and down a few inclines,
through bushwhacking,

back out onto the road again,

and there were actually
two sets of tracks

that I've seen in the
pictures, 15 and 13 inch.

They didn't know if
they were together,

but they did cross paths a few
times going back and forth.

Then at some point, John Green,
who knew Roger Patterson,

a lot of the guys knew each
other in this little circle,

he called Roger Patterson's
house when he was in town,

and he told him, or he left a
message with Mrs. Patterson,

Patricia, that, let Roger know
there are tracks down here,

'cause at that time Roger's
away over at Mount Saint Helen's

with Bob Gimlin
on an expedition.

"There's tracks down here,
we know he's wanting to shoot

a little amateur
documentary of him

with the Sasquatch hunter,

he was hoping to see
some tracks to film.

Tell him, good tracks,
pristine, nice lookin' tracks.

Come on down."

It took about two or
three weeks before Gimlin

got around to actually
being able to leave.

Him and Roger took
off for Bluff Creek.

By the time they got down there,

Bob's told me that,
"When we got down there,

you could see where the tracks
had been, a lot of 'em,"

but he says because
of the rains,

and they were in dust and dirt,

loose dirt had
kinda washed 'em out

and took a lot of
the definition out.

You could tell they
were footprints,

but they weren't really
the nice pristine tracks

like John Green had described.

A few years ago,

oh, I got people claiming
to be involved in this film

as a hoax, and it's
so disappointing

that the news media
is willing to welcome

somebody claiming a hoax
without investigation,

without question, and
this is what happened

when Ray Wallace died.

Ray Wallace had a
construction company

down in Bluff Creek
many years ago,

and by the time the
Patterson film was shot,

he'd moved his operation
back to Washington.

But yet, every time
footprints show up,

they wanted to blame
old Ray had a pair

of wooden carvings here.

- If Sasquatch does not exist,

as the skeptics and critics
would assert, would maintain,

then all of the footprint
evidence out there

has been hoaxed.

And of course we know
of one individual

whose family
claimed that indeed,

he had hoaxed all
of the footprints

in the west United
States over the years

by fabricating these
carved wooden feet

that were strapped to boots
and worn by his brother,

and cousins, and
nephews, and so forth,

to traipse around the
pacific northwest,

and west United States.

Where to begin.

What was most
dismaying was the speed

with which the media
grabbed onto this

as the explanation.

Finally the mystery was solved,

the mystery of Bigfoot
had been accounted for

by these ridiculously crude,

and non-anatomical
carved wooden feet.

With no prerequisite
that they account for

how these were used,
really practically used,

in creating not only
individual footprints

but long lines of tracks
that, in some instances,

were followed by
investigators for miles.

- So you got Dan
Rather with CBS,

you got Fox news, you
got MSNBC going on,

"The mystery of Bigfoot
has been solved.

It was Ray Wallace, according
to the Ray Wallace family."

I thought, wow, so let's
take a look at that.

They didn't, so
what I did was I got

Ray Wallace's
carving, and I took,

despite the fact
that many of these

were different lengths
than the carving,

different widths
than the carving,

I made 'em all the same length

and made 'em all the same width,

and I can tell ya, a five
year old, a beginner,

if you'd have just
made the comparison,

you could see that
this wood carving

and it's toe line, could
not have made that.

But yet, these news channels,

'cause Ray never
tried to fool anybody,

yet skeptics, when you see
the tracks along the road,

they left this flat appearance.

Flat, flat, flat.

Well, where's the recesses?

This is in fine dust and dirt.

It left flat tracks.

Where Green and
everybody stepped

with their logging boots,
their regular shoes,

their tennis shoes,
you can see the imprint

of every sole pattern.

This here would've left
like a sponge print

in that fine dirt.

It would not have left a flat,

which a pad does when you step
all that weight down on it.

It would not have been flat,

and all of a sudden
now they gotta think,

"Oh gosh, we were so certain
that Ray Wallace made these."

The transfer of evidence
from this pattern

on the bottom of this foot,
which they call a stomper,

could not have made this track.

- The claimant who seems
to get the most attention

on this point is Bob Hieronimus,

who claimed to be the
man in the first suit.

The problem with this, the
most glaring problem is,

as he joined forces
with Philip Morris,

a famous costume designer,

the two apparently didn't
confer sufficiently

before sharing their stories,

because they didn't get them
straight, they contradict.

Bob Hieronimus gave a
description of the costume

that was diametrically
opposed to the description

of the costume provided
by Philip Morris.

Hieronimus describes a
costume that was made

out of a green horse
hide, and talked about it

being in two principal pieces,

one that came over the
top, like pajama tops

but without any
buttons or enclosures,

just a piece that was
probably stitched up the back,

and a pair of stiff
trousers that he wore.

Of course, and he had
football pads he claimed

and other padding to
bulk him out a bit,

and then a football helmet
that had a fake face

built out around it,
with a single eye opening

because Bob has one glass eye.

They used his spare glass eye
in the face of the costume

in order to catch the glint
of the sun, he claimed.

Now, imagine walking in
this unwieldy costume

with a single port of vision,

which he claims was a good
two inches away from his eye,

so put a little toilet paper
roll up against your eye,

and then go out there,
close the other,

and try to walk on an
uneven, irregular surface.

But if that wasn't
enough, then Philip Morris

claimed that Roger
had simply purchased

and then modified one of
his off the shelf costumes.

- These are the beginning,

these are the cibachrome
images they call 'em,

they're the best images
of the film itself.

Here you can see the toes
on the bottom of the animal.

It's in motion.

This foot's a little blurred,

and here's, at the
end of the stride,

this is one of the things I
always point out to people,

notice how the foot is
vertical to the ground.

Look down here, the foot
is hardly off the ground,

it's already vertical
to the ground.

When people walk, and
I explain this to folks

that come out,
even the skeptics,

and I tell 'em, listen,
when people walk,

their feet barely come 15
degrees off the ground,

it's like a pendulum.

They don't lift their feet
vertical, high and vertical.

I said if you
wanna try doing it,

it's hard enough
to stand that way,

but if you try walking that way,

and as far as I
know, no one has ever

been able to duplicate that.

Our bone structure
just does not allow it.

- When you have a foot that
has a longitudinal arch

as in the human,
then the entire foot

is incorporated into the lever,

and that imposes bending
stresses on the toes.

So the human toes have
gotten much shorter.

They are there not so
much for prehension

as for traction.

They prevent the foot
from slipping back

when we're walking and running,

and especially the big toe.

If we have a foot that has
a mid-foot flexibility,

then when the heel
comes up, like this,

the weight's not concentrated
under the ball of the foot,

instead it's under
the entire mid-foot.

- The biomechanical foot, and
there's anthropology studies

in scientific journals
that talk about this.

When the foot is in
motion, it flexes.

There are things
that take place,

and these toes, for instance,
when you go to bend your foot,

that Sasquatch has what
we call a midtarsal break.

The ankle's back here
and right in front of it

is actually where
it bends its foot.

You can see it in the film,
you see it in the footprints.

The ball of the foot was deeper

and of course the
toes are always deeper

because by then, all of
the weight of the animal

has come forward, this
part's lifted off the ground,

and you got everything, and
your toes work like hydraulics.

You got muscles and
tendons pressing down,

and now you've got
800,000 pounds.

Instead of being scattered
over the whole foot,

you've got it on the
front of the foot,

then you got it
on the toes last,

and they sink in the
deepest of the whole track.

Here's a picture of 2005,

where me and the
watchmen of 20 Mile Bay

made it up to the
top of a mountain

that had a growed
over switchback on it.

I walked over, and
this track was there.

Again, the big heel,
didn't even press here,

the ball, and the bulbous toes.

It even reached a
certain depth of dampness

'cause this had had water in it

and the air dries it out,
but the farther down,

the deep, you get
into the moisture.

This is my footprint
after I'd filmed it.

I'm a pretty big guy.

I took my foot for scale and
put it right alongside of it.

I have a pointed
heel, as people do,

our heels are much
narrower than the big

rounded heel of a Sasquatch.

Many years later, I'm
talkin' to John Green,

and he allows me to see
some of his pictures

from Blue Creek Mountain
taken in the summer of 1967.

This is the tracks, the
15 and 13 inch track

where they crossed each
other's paths at one point,

and by golly, the heel
stepped, the foot cupped,

it looked like it rolled
over onto the ball,

and the toes imprinted
into the ground right here.

And that is exactly
what happened in 2005,

'cause I was always
bothered by why

it didn't press the middle.

I've seen the midtarsal breaks

like you see in
the Patterson film,

where the foot bends and
the large part of the ball

of the foot, back
towards the heel,

pushes this dirt back
and you get this mound,

this ridge across the
track back by the heel.

So that's another sign
of a real working foot.

- I mean, you look at an
example like this big male,

big, heavy male,
and look at that,

there's no differential
pressure there.

There's a little bit
across this point here,

but there's no indication
of an arch, it's flat.

And that assists in the
distribution of weight

through more surface area,
given their much greater mass,

which is a cube of
the linear dimensions,

remember, the volume.

So, the Sasquatch foot
walks through a step cycle

in a much different
manner than we do.

Given their long toes,
and their shorter legs,

they also have a tendency to
have a high stepping gait,

which is also an
advantage when you're

walking through rough
and irregular terrain.

We get trained walking on
sidewalks and flat floors

to barely lift our foot at
sufficient to clear our toes

on that featureless,
flat surface.

When you go out hiking, you find

you have to adjust a little bit.

Or, if you're walking
down the sidewalk

and the two sections of
sidewalk are slightly askew

due to frost heave or
something or a root,

boom, you can trip over just
a quarter inch of difference.

That's because
we're so efficient,

we minimize the amount of
muscle effort to swing our foot.

In contrast to that, Patty seems

to be walking
through tall grass,

even though she's
walking on the sand bar,

because her typical substrate
that she's walking through

is brush and scrub and grass.

- In the film, if you do
stabilization of the creature,

you can see it had finger
movement, it had wrist movement.

It bent at the elbows.

You put a man in a suit,
because the arms are so long,

people say, "Well maybe
he was using sticks to,"

I think that Hieronimus or
somebody suggested this.

Bob Hieronimus said
it was the last guy

who claimed to be in a suit,

possibly used some sort
of sticks or apparatus

even though Hieronimus
in his story,

which I don't believe a word of,

he said he slipped his
hands in the gloves.

But the problem is, he's 5'10"
or so, he's under six feet,

and when we bend, then our
arms have to bend at the elbow.

Our wrists happen to bend here.

In order to get as
wide as the back was,

like Grover Krantz said once,

you'd have to hold your
arms up to the side

to the elbows to get
the shoulder width,

then you got this,
so then you gotta use

some apparatus to
swing the arms.

But these bend, 'cause
you can see in the film.

In the original
film, people saw it,

you could see the
muscle movement.

It's one thing to try
to make a fake suit

look like it's got muscles,

or even make a muscle
look like it moves,

but these muscles in the
film work off of each other.

They fire in a certain sequence.

When we all walk,
we bend our elbows.

When we move, everything
works in a certain sequence

off the other.

To make something mechanical
that could do all that

and mimic perfectly
nature, it's ridiculous.

It wasn't even really
available at the time.

But then, furthermore,
a few years ago

National Geographic for
the first time in history,

they did a study where
they used science.

They used photogrammetry
and optic measuring.

That's where you can
take mathematics,

you take the lens the
size that Patterson used.

You can take known measurements

that were taken
on the film site,

you can take a film frame

and you can tell
distances to everything,

the size of everything.

This animal, in it's
stooped, walking posture

from the ground, top of
its head, leaning forward,

deep knee bends, seven
feet six inches high.

That put all the
six foot high guys

out of the running as
far as I'm concerned.

That means standing erect, if
it would stand straight up,

you could figure at
least another six inches,

put it up around eight feet.

They went on to say that
only one out of 100 million

human beings reach the
height of eight feet tall,

and those that do have
noted abnormalities

in their walking gait.

This creature walked like
it was in its birthday suit.

When Roger got behind it
and it was walking away

up the valley, you could see
the space between its legs.

- This creature was,
it had shoulders

that were a good
36 inches apart,

and the pelvis was as well.

- When I wrote my article,
"Who's Hoaxing Who

in the Making of
Bigfoot", I showed a guy

an attack dog suit
all padded up.

He waddled like a penguin,

because your legs are so
bulked, they rub together.

You don't have that freedom
of motion when you walk.

This creature did.

Eight feet tall.

When you get up over
eight feet tall,

you're getting up
around the world,

Guinness World Book of Records.

And you're talking about
people who need apparatuses

to hold themselves
steady as they walk,

'cause their muscles
are so taxed,

their joints, they're
usually lock-kneed,

the knees are turned in,

they have a hard
time motoring along.

This thing walked away like
it was pedaling a bicycle.

People look at
that film, they go,

"Yeah, it walks like a man."

But the Russian scientists
that looked at it

and biomechanics experts
in the early '70s

went ahead and took it Russia.

When they watched the film,

these are guys that had
the Russian Olympic,

they were training
the Russian Olympians,

they realized that this
thing walks like somebody

who cross skis,
cross country skis.

They said no one
walks like that,

and they were absolutely right.

- The biggest obstacle to
the continuing research

in this field, is
the community itself.

You've heard it referred to
as the Sasquatch community.

In the United States, you
call it the Bigfoot community.

They're their own worst enemy.

More than anything,
the whole field

now resembles more
like an asylum

that's being taken
over by the inmates.

- I wanna say something
that is different

from anything else
in this room, okay.

We will not find
evidence, it is my belief,

of Bigfoot, although we will
see Bigfoot from time to time.

At this precise point
in the universe,

there are three or
four other earths

functioning at different energy
frequencies or dimensions.

Bigfoot lives in one
of those dimensions.

It is a non-violent
form of life.

It eats plant food, but
it does have enemies.

Several of the enemies are
quite larger than Bigfoot,

and then there's little
packs like wild dogs.

When Bigfoot encounters them,

Bigfoot has the
capability of changing

the energy frequency
of its body form.

Sometimes, it's like having
a radiostat here and dialing.

Sometimes he ends up
here on planet earth,

and he's here, stabilizes
for a short period of time,

and then what occurs is,
he dials himself back

and goes back to
his other frequency.

This is an explanation of why
everybody says they see him,

but these people over here are
saying there is no evidence.

- I'm Peter Watts, and
I wonder if someone

actually killed one, and
it was in these dimension,

would it just disappear
after it died?

Or would it stay there?

- That's the word that we had.

If one died here, they
would also move it--

- People going around
spoutin' all kinds of rubbish

and nonsense and taking
all kinds of hoaxing

and fake footage
and fake reports,

getting it all on
YouTube and the internet,

which has not helped
matters at all.

It's put the whole
question into the realm

of what you would
call tabloid research.

Straight ahead.

No.

On Thursday,
August 20th, around nine a.m.,

Paul says he drove deep
into the Blue Mountains

of northern Oregon, to a
place called Deeduck Springs

at the Umatilla National Forest.

- Well I just drove
up to the pond here,

and I know they frequent this
area in August and September.

I just got out of my little car

and walked around over here,

and there was tracks
here in the mud.

I think it was gonna
get a drink or,

I don't know, maybe it was
gonna cross there or somethin'.

But anyway, I must've scared it.

Freeman
says he's been searching

for the legendary
Sasquatch in the woods

near the Millcreek Watershed
near his Walla Walla home

for the last 10 years.

In October of 1988, his
son Dwayne got snapshots.

In April of this year, Paul
got video from a distance

of around 69 feet, this
time, camera in hand,

he was a whole lot closer.

- I started up the bank there

and I heard brush and
stuff popping up there.

Pretty good little tracks.

There's a good one.

Right up this little trail.

Right up there is my view, yeah.

I'm gonna make up
some plaster here.

Got my cast made.

There's two exits between,

it's dry there.

I hear the brush
popping and stuff.

Oh, there he goes.

Oh, there he goes.

It looked at me once.

Jesus.

I kinda got a little nervous
when it looked at me,

then it turned and
just kept on going,

and went into the brush
there and disappeared.

I was lookin' for
it with the camera,

and I seen another one,
smaller, coming at me up there.

Oh god.

There's two of 'em, I guess.

After the incident,

Freeman says he heard screams

from the direction
of the creatures

that kept him pinned down
for almost two hours,

screams he says
he did not record.

- I ain't never been scared
like I was scared yesterday.

I never have been afraid of
man or beast or anything,

but I set up there
yesterday and,

cowered down like a little kid.

Is Bigfoot
fact, or fiction?

- I really got upset.

This is a
first alleged scream,

unknown scream which
some people think

may have come from a Sasquatch.

It was recorded by a
Sergeant Kenny Cooper

as he was patrolling in the area

of the Chief Mountain
Road in Washington state

on the eve of November, 1975.

- Another interesting one
happened at Ruby Creek in 1941

that's unique because
Jeanny Chapman,

who lived on a farm there,

again the road only
went up to Ruby Creek

and then beyond a couple
miles was her farm.

You had to go through the forest

or down the railroad tracks,

that's the only thing
that could take you

in that direction, was
the railroad at that time.

By 1956,
there had been several

such reported sightings,
which had been reported

in small local newspapers.

Mr. John Green,
publisher of a newspaper

at Harrison Hot Springs,
British Columbia,

began investigating
some of these sightings.

Here is John Green to
report on a sighting

he investigated in 1957.

- When I first came
here in about 1957,

it was still pretty well open,

but all this has
grown up since then.

What happened at
that time was that

Mrs. George Chapman
lived in a house

down by the river
behind me here.

She was in the house, and
the children were outside.

One of them came in and told
her that there was a cow

coming out of the
woods, so she looked out

and she saw this man-like
thing, about eight feet tall

and completely covered
with hair like a bear.

She knew it to be a Sasquatch,

and this was quite a well known
thing to the Indian people,

and she was frightened,
so she took the children,

ran down to the river, and
then through the graveyard,

which is right behind me here,

and came out just about
here onto the track,

and then ran on
down to Ruby Creek.

She'd really only had one
quick look at the thing,

so it wouldn't be that
convincing a story

except that a lot of people
immediately went back there

and saw these enormous tracks.

Mr. Tyfting, of course,
was one of them,

and can describe what
the tracks are like

and what they did.

- Well, he came through
the bush, into the shed,

or the lean to of the house,

and there was a bowl of dried
fish or smoked salmon, rotted,

and he broke the bowl
and there was some fish

eaten there and thrown around,

and then he went
down the riverbank,

and apparently took a
drink and then come back up

on the other side the house,
through the garden patch,

and up to this here
fence, and stepped

with one foot on outside of him

and one foot on
this side the fence,

and walked right over it.

The footprints were
about 18 inches,

and then he went across there

and over to the
next fence there,

and went right up the hillside.

That's as far as
we could follow it.

- Hi, my name is John Green,

and I've been studying
Sasquatch since 1957.

Custodian at the
local high school

was named as somebody
investigating and report it

a little farther
up the railroad,

and the Indian lady came
looking for her husband,

who was workin' on
the section then.

And said that,

this monster had come
out of the woods, right,

went walking towards
her house she was in.

You're
talking about Mrs. Chapman?

- Yes.

- Here's a track, and I showed
you one up on the mountain,

the miles I found.

Here's a track that
ended up in Ruby Creek,

the same year Archibald
happened in late September.

A guy by the name
of Mark Quarton,

and Mark was in Ruby
Creek huntin' by himself,

and as he got down
by the bog area

where a lot of the game is,

geese and ducks are down
that way, a lotta water.

He says he got near
one of the bogs,

he noticed something out
of the corner of his eye,

and he turned, and
coming down at an angle,

a large stone hit the bog
right near where he was at.

It splashed him through
the wall of shrubbery

along there, the water
was such a splash

that it got him wet.

He thought he walked up
on a hunter's location.

He stepped forward
and he looked through,

apologized or whatever
he had on his mind.

He looked through,
and all he saw

was an upright figure walking
away through the bush,

but he could only see the
outline of something dark.

He didn't think it
was really tall,

like it was only
maybe six feet tall,

six and a half feet tall.

Mark's 6'4", but
he became unnerved

so he got the heck outta there.

First of all, would you speak

your full name, please.

- First name, Mark.
Last name, Quarton.

- Do you wish
you identity to be
kept confidential?

No.

I don't care.

What is
your occupation?

I'm a gas fitter.

Do you wear
corrective lenses?

No.

How old are you?

30.

Now, first question is,

just tell me
generally the story.

Tell me what happened.

I was
talking down this road

up at Ruby Crrek,
this marshy area.

Moving real slow, keeping
an eye on the bush,

looking for deer and bear.

Caught a glimpse
of something black

out of the corner
of my eye moving.

No sound at that point.

Just something moving.

So I quickly spun mainly just
my upper body towards it.

Saw a rock 12 to 15
feet off the ground,

kind of arching down towards me.

Landed in the bog.

Seemed like right next to me,

but I don't know where
in that bog it landed,

but it seemed like
it was right there.

So I paused and started
going through the motions

in my head, thinking where
could it have come from, and,

a bunch of things
went through my head,

but nothing really made sense.

So I kind of, I backed
up a little bit,

and I was looking at
this grove of trees.

I saw something
black kind of move

and then it took
off like a rocket.

My first impression, holy shit.

And then I started thinking

that I had walked
through somebody's,

under somebody's tree and
they were whipping a rock

at me to get me to take off.

I thought at first a
person threw a rock at me,

but then I saw something
take off into the bush

and there was no
way that was a man.

How did you react
when you first saw it?

I froze.

- He wanted to go
out there and see

what the heck threw
this rock at him.

The rock was about
18 inches long,

and about half as,

it was as tall as half
the length of the rock.

One of the things he told
me during the conversation

was that the way
it was spiraling,

I thought that was kinda,
I said, "Spiraling?

"You mean like
throwing a football?"

"Yeah, yeah,
spiraling like that,

"it was rotating, fast."

So quickly, I asked him
before he could even think,

I said, "Which way
was it spinning?"

And without hesitation, he
says, "Towards me, forward."

I said, "That's a good answer."

He says, "Why, what
difference that make?"

Primates can throw underhand,
they can't throw overhand,

and when you flip
something underhand,

you start the rotation
going forward,

a ball or anything,
it's rolling forward.

I picked up a rock half the
size of what he described.

I tried throwing it across
this narrow logging road,

it never got over my head and
I barely got it seven feet.

This thing threw a rock
from 40 feet across a bog,

and when he turned, he says,

"It was just about a foot or
two through those branches.

I saw it coming down
at a steep angle."

So whatever had threw
it, had lobbed it high,

and threw it towards
him, very strong.

I said, "It'd sure be
nice to get that rock."

Quarton and his friend
never found any tracks.

He said, "I know
the way it went,

because I could
see the bushes move

and hear sticks snappin',
but I could never see it.

It went around the other side,

and I know the travel it went,

around the other side
and on outta sight

down the side of the hillside."

So he goes that way, and
they didn't find anything,

but when Thomas went in,
it wasn't five minutes,

he says, "Bill, bring
the camera equipment."

So I did.

This track here, right
here you can see it

through the vegetation
where it pressed down.

I don't know if you
can see it good enough,

but this thing,
it actually turned

the tips of the toes down
when it got into the soft bog,

almost as if it's gripping,

and that's what
it's supposed to do.

Remember the foot
on Mount Archibald,

when it was going up the hill,

it seemed to be
gripping the ground,

and kept going in the
direction of travel.

This has five toe punctures.

They had water standing in 'em.

We waited a day or so to let
the water seep outta here,

'cause it had been raining
the day Mark was there

and the day after it
when I interviewed him,

and we let it seep
out and Steenburg

actually cast this
track, believe it or not,

and he has a casting
of it at his place.

Mark never knew those
tracks was there,

and I thought, "Wow, if
this guy wanted to hoax me,

he woulda made sure that I knew

that they found those
tracks, come and see 'em."

He never knew.

I seen the pictures,
he was so happy

they was able to find
evidence to back up his story.

- This is my file,
one zero one six two.

This concerns an
incident I investigated

that happened on
September 21st, 2008.

Myself and a female researcher
by the name of Chrissy

found three footprints,
one of which was cast,

and you can see it right
in front of you here.

It was in bog debris.

Footprint in layers and
layers of bog debris.

And as you can see,
that's not the best stuff

to try and cast something with.

I was quite pleasantly surprised

I'm actually getting any
impression out of it at all.

There were two other tracks,

one of which miss
Chrissy destroyed herself

by sinking up to her crotch
in mud, and falling on it.

And the second set was
destroyed by a dog,

which had clawed it, and the dog

was going for this track
too when I got ahold of it

and told her to tie
the damn thing up.

We went back the next day,

'cause we thought because
it had been so warm and dry

that it would dry
out, and it did,

and we cast it at that time.

Because bad weather was
due to come back in,

we wanted to make sure we
got a good casting made

before the track was destroyed.

But you're looking
at the original,

out of the ground
casting right there.

- Now if you wanna
know the classics,

I mentioned the Jacko
capture up at Yale.

That was very interesting.

Thomas Steenburg and
myself, a few years ago,

were the first researchers
in 120 or 25 years

that actually found
that location by the
number four tunnel.

Everything was like it was in
the Daily Columnist article.

The train was
coming from Litton,

and in those days, a
gravel road from Agassiz

out to Ruby Creek stopped
and it was all forest,

all the way up to Hope,
all the way up to Yale,

there was no road at that time.

So when this train was
coming from Litton,

it rounded the bend, it says,

"When the number four tunnel
first came into sight,

we saw something laying
by the tracks up ahead.

We thought it was
someone laying there."

It blew its whistle,
it didn't move.

So they had to eventually
stop the train.

They dismounted,
they went towards it,

and when they got up
to it, it had come to

and it scrambled
up the rock bluff.

It got up so high,
about 10 feet or so,

'cause there are two
rock ledges possible

where they said it happened,

that it could've gotten to,
and they're about 10 feet high.

We didn't know which one, they
didn't say in the article,

but it got hung up, so they
called for the bell rope.

They didn't know what
this strange creature was.

It was covered with hair, they
never seen anything like it.

The term Sasquatch
hadn't been coined

until the 1920s I believe,

over here at Chehalis
by a J.W. Burns.

So they got the bell
rope, they captured it,

they telegraphed
into town telling 'em

"Hey, the train is stopped."

You have to tell 'em
why in those days,

a lotta robberies
and stuff going on,

"Not to worry, we're
a little bit behind.

They're bringing this
creature in that we captured."

So they took it into
town, the whole town

had heard about this
news, it was in a stir.

They stopped short of
town and dropped it off

at the machine shop.

They had a doctor named
Hannington examine it.

In his report, he says
that it was 4'7" tall,

127 pounds, covered
with short black hair

all over its body.

It had hands and feet, and
it said paws in parentheses,

like a human's, like a man's

but all the fingers ran
in the same direction,

no opposing thumb like we have.

The feet had five
toes like we have,

and it had this short,
black, strong hair it said,

and one of the
interesting things that
the doctor mentioned,

from the elbow to the wrist
was longer than a man's arm,

and they found that
it could break a stick

by twisting it rather
than snapping it

like we would have
to do, very strong.

What he described was a ape,

and I don't think
the first gorillas

weren't brought over
to this continent

until around 1902, 1906.

So 25 years earlier, they
wouldn't even actually

seen gorillas, they would've
seen monkeys probably,

but not gorillas.

What you're describing
is the size of a chimp

or a small gorilla, those are
expensive, exotic animals.

I said, "No one dumps
'em on logging roads

like an old dog you
don't want anymore."

A Sasquatch is not born big.

It comes out as a youngster
and it has to grow.

They think it got too
close to the rock bluff

and it had fallen and
it was just knocked down

and knocked the wind
out of 'em or somethin',

that's how they wound up
seein' it by the tracks.

They go to take it to England,

and somewhere along the line
there's no real trail on it.

It ran out, they don't know
what exactly happened to it,

but in those days,
I can only speculate

whether you be at
sea or on a train,

something dies, you don't
leave it layin' there,

especially if you
got a long trip ahead

because they worry about plague

and getting sick
from a dead body.

No way to preserve it,

so they probably
pitched it overboard

not knowing what it was.

And that was unfortunate,

because there was
that one opportunity

that they could've had the body,

and they didn't, and
they discarded it.

Could Jack
Faust's Town Hall witnesses

be liars?

- Bigfoot, Sasquatch,
the abominable snowman,

call him, or her,
whatever you want.

It's a controversy
as old as the hills

in which they are sighted,

and as fresh as the
winds have been blowing

the last couple days,

because in recent
weeks, more sightings.

The controversy continues.

There was a photo sent to
us from an alleged sighting,

and I believe we have
another picture there.

Yes, and there we
have another picture.

Now, let's go from
the photographs to
the eye witnesses.

I'm gonna ask here, who
here in this audience

has seen Bigfoot?

You sir, identify yourself.

- My name's Gary Weilert, I
was huntin' elk about 1982

with some family
and some friends.

Whereabouts?

- Up in, out of
Milton-Freewater area,

in the Blue Mountain range.

The Blue Mountains.

- We were about just
gettin' done huntin'.

It was just startin'
to get dark.

We were camped at
the end of a meadow.

We were all standing there,

and we noticed an
object come out

of the far end of the
meadow, came straight at us,

and then paralleled us.

We figured maybe it saw
the fire or something.

How far away?

- 200 yards.

It had just began to snow,
it was plenty light out,

we could see it was up on
two hind legs, walking.

We figured it wasn't no bear,

because a bear usually does
not walk on its hind legs

no 100 yards, 150 yards.

Usually only under attack
or something like that

they'll get up on their legs,

but it walked parallel to
us to the edge of the woods,

and then stopped,
fiddled around.

I don't know what it was
doing, just standing there,

and then that was the end of it.

We didn't wanna go after it.

How big, would you say?

- Well, to get an idea, at
first when we saw it come out,

we thought it was an elk,

and elk is a pretty
massive animal.

Then when we realized
it wasn't on four legs,

it was up on two, we got
a little more curious.

We had scopes, we
tried to see better.

We couldn't tell no
hair color or anything.

We knew it was dark,
blackish color,

and it was rather big,
probably nine, 10 feet tall.

What was it walking on?

- Snow.

Did it leave tracks?

- We did not go
up there to look.

We weren't interested, you know,

like, say, brave white hunters,
but we didn't wanna go look.

- Scientists don't
make decisions

as to whether

things are this or that.

They investigate.

And I thought, good Lord,

I've been trying to
get 'em to investigate

for half a century.

They don't investigate.

They have beliefs,

and anything that is
contrary to their belief,

they won't investigate.

So these people have beliefs.

They're not scientists.

- I'm Grover Krantz, I'm a
professor of anthropology

here at Washington
State University.

I teach courses in dealing
with physical anthropology,

introduction to the
subject, human evolution,

human races, the human skeleton,

and sometimes seminars
on advanced subjects.

Do
you feel compelled

to still make the case for
the existence of Bigfoot?

- Well I'm satisfied that
this Bigfoot thing exists.

Trying to make the
case or argue for it

on the present evidence
is largely futile,

but I'd like as much as
possible to let the word out

as to what I found out
and what I'm doing.

Tell
me, why is it futile,

can you elaborate on that?

- Almost any scientist
will tell you,

in no uncertain terms,
that you will prove

the existence of
Bigfoot or Sasquatch

by bringing in a body or a
substantial piece of one.

No other evidence is proof.

They are adamant about this.

- Scientific world
does not work the same

as the legal world.

Eyewitness testimony
really doesn't mean much.

Anecdotal evidence
doesn't mean much.

Photographic, video
evidence doesn't mean much.

They need something
to physically examine.

Basically, you have
to lay a Sasquatch

out on the table for 'em.

So, until or unless
that happens,

this will remain
in the elements,

for lack of a better
term, on the fringe.

And for me, what I need to do,

is I gotta find that
hard physical evidence

that will confirm, to the
people who really matter,

that the Sasquatch
does indeed exist.

It wouldn't surprise me
if the physical remains

of a Sasquatch are laid
out on a table one day.

It won't be found by a
researcher like me in the bush.

It'll be found by some
anthropology student

who found them in
a long forgotten

museum box or drawer somewhere.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit.