Bigfooters covered by Vanity Fair Magazine

[makaya325]

Wow. Contradicted yourself is just two posts. That might be a record for you.

a) There IS a difference; and b) if you are going to argue the point of a particular quote, exchanging one word for another, with close but not identical definitions, jerks your argument out of context.

An 800 pound beast roaming the country side undetected is very possible. A breeding population of 800 pound beasts roaming the country side is silly.

 

[Blackdog]

How could there be an 800 pound beast roaming the countryside if there wasn't a breeding population of 800 pound beasts roaming the countryside?

 

[makaya325]

How could there be an 800 pound beast roaming the countryside if there wasn't a breeding population of 800 pound beasts roaming the countryside?

There cant be only one. There has to be a population. That is what the writer forgot.

 

[desertgal]

An 800 pound beast roaming the country side undetected is very possible.

Odd that it would be very possible, with all the '10000's of loggers, rangers, etc. combing the wilderness, checking under every leaf, every rock, etc.' looking for it.

 

[makaya325]

Odd that it would be very possible, with all the '10000's of loggers, rangers, etc. combing the wilderness, checking under every leaf, every rock, etc.' looking for it.

While it is an almost certain biological impossibility for a POPULATION of them to go undetected, It is not unlikely for a single one to evade detection. That is like looking for a missing person in all of that rugged, temperate rainforest.

 

[LTC8K6]

A single one is sure getting around in certain areas...

 

[desertgal]

While it is an almost certain biological impossibility for a POPULATION of them to go undetected, It is not unlikely for a single one to evade detection. That is like looking for a missing person in all of that rugged, temperate rainforest.

Maybe you are right. After all, DB Cooper jumped out of an airplane over the PNW in 1971 and they never did find him.

Although...7 years later, they did find evidence that he had been there. 2 years after that, they found more. Hmm. One man passes through the PNW and evidence of his journey is found, but, according to you, a single Bigfoot could allegedly live, hunt, hike, sleep, etc. there, possibly for decades, and no one would ever stumble across a single bit of verifiable evidence of his existence, even those looking for it. Pretty crafty species.

 

[Drewbot]

I'm wondering if Vanity Fair is looking for an Undercover writer to go to this years TBRC extravaganza. You KNOW they are not going to get in this year, unless it is on the Down-low. Ya know?

 

[makaya325]

Maybe you are right. After all, DB Cooper jumped out of an airplane over the PNW in 1971 and they never did find him.

Although...7 years later, they did find evidence that he had been there. 2 years after that, they found more. Hmm. One man passes through the PNW and evidence of his journey is found, but, according to you, a single Bigfoot could allegedly live, hunt, hike, sleep, etc. there, possibly for decades, and no one would ever stumble across a single bit of verifiable evidence of his existence, even those looking for it. Pretty crafty species.

It was likely on accident. He probably created attention (Where theres smoke, theres fire). How long were they looking for Cooper? Was he using fire to capture the attention of a nearby airplane/Helicopter? Couldnt the pilot know the location cooper landed in?

Few people look for Bigfoot. That doesnt mean it should not have been found. I would have expected a Wildlife biologist to have stumbled upon something by now.

 

[desertgal]

It was likely on accident.

What was an accident? The disappearance of DB Cooper? No. It's safe to say it wasn't an accident.

He probably created attention (Where theres smoke, theres fire).

No. It's also safe to say that Cooper didn't attempt to draw attention to himself. At least, not after he jumped.

How long were they looking for Cooper?

They still are. But, then, no one knows who Cooper really was, or what he really looked like.

Was he using fire to capture the attention of a nearby airplane/Helicopter?

No. Like our legendary furry pal, Cooper didn't want to be found. That's the whole point. He didn't want to be found, he just passed through, no one was even sure what he looked like, but there was still evidence that he was there. If a crafty human being intent on avoiding detection couldn't slip through the PNW without leaving evidence behind, why would you think an animal could manage it for decades?

Few people look for Bigfoot.

I think the Bigfoot community would beg to differ. Not to mention the '10000's of loggers, rangers, etc." that you yourself claim are "combing the wilderness, checking under every leaf, every rock, etc.' looking for any sign of even one creature.

That doesnt mean it should not have been found. I would have expected a Wildlife biologist to have stumbled upon something by now.

You just said a few posts ago that "It is not unlikely for a single one to evade detection." It is either likely or unlikely. It can't be both.

Is it possible that a single one could escape detection over, say, decades? Anything is possible. But likely? No. Even in the vastness of the PNW, people hunt, hike, fish, camp, etc. That increases the likelihood that somebody, at some point, would have found some verifiable evidence of an unknown creature, even if they didn't spot the creature itself.

 

[makaya325]

What was an accident? The disappearance of DB Cooper? No. It's safe to say it wasn't an accident.



No. It's also safe to say that Cooper didn't attempt to draw attention to himself. At least, not after he jumped.



They still are. But, then, no one knows who Cooper really was, or what he really looked like.



No. Like our legendary furry pal, Cooper didn't want to be found. That's the whole point. He didn't want to be found, he just passed through, no one was even sure what he looked like, but there was still evidence that he was there. If a crafty human being intent on avoiding detection couldn't slip through the PNW without leaving evidence behind, why would you think an animal could manage it for decades?



I think the Bigfoot community would beg to differ. Not to mention the '10000's of loggers, rangers, etc." that you yourself claim are "combing the wilderness, checking under every leaf, every rock, etc.' looking for any sign of even one creature.



You just said a few posts ago that "It is not unlikely for a single one to evade detection." It is either likely or unlikely. It can't be both.

Is it possible that a single one could escape detection over, say, decades? Anything is possible. But likely? No. Even in the vastness of the PNW, people hunt, hike, fish, camp, etc. That increases the likelihood that somebody, at some point, would have found some verifiable evidence of an unknown creature, even if they didn't spot the creature itself.

A single one could EASILY evade detection in an area of wilderness larger than some states. While some areas are visited, are they often inhabitated? No

 

[desertgal]

A single one could EASILY evade detection in an area of wilderness larger than some states. While some areas are visited, are they often inhabitated? No

Are you related to John Kerry? You're just flip-floppin' all over the place.

 

[makaya325]

Are you related to John Kerry? You're just flip-floppin' all over the place.

I am saying it would be incredibly easy for a single beast to go undetected in the million plus acres of the Canadian Forests.

 

[GT/CS]

I am saying it would be incredibly easy for a single beast to go undetected in the million plus acres of the Canadian Forests.

If it were possible for there to be a single beast, but it's not possible.

Mak, have you studied up on what you call the PNW?

 

[makaya325]

If it were possible for there to be a single beast, but it's not possible.

Mak, have you studied up on what you call the PNW?

Exactly! It is so easy to speculate about imaginary species because they do not have to follow any specific criteria, due to the fact they dont exist! If you were to ask me on a population living undetected, i would say not a chance. If they were existing, you would catch at least a few dozen daily. Even the rare Mountain gorilla is found quite often.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2155469.ece

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19974474/


Have i studied the PNW in and out? No, but i always have had a never ending interest with the landscape of the Pacific Northwest, regardless of whether a monster roams its forests.

 

[desertgal]

I am saying it would be incredibly easy for a single beast to go undetected in the million plus acres of the Canadian Forests.

Dude, the Canadian forests stretch inland east to the Canadian Rockies in Alberta, and north past Edmonton to the Northwest Territories. In Canada, the "Pacific Northwest" is confined from mid British Columbia to the Pacific Coast. You either just shifted the goalposts to conveniently include another province, or you need to invest in a map.

Now it's "incredibly easy"? What happened to "That doesnt mean it should not have been found. I would have expected a Wildlife biologist to have stumbled upon something by now."?

You keep talking about these huge tracts of land, such as a "million plus acres". But, the habitat of one creature is not going to encompass a million plus acres. It is going to encompass, by comparison, one relatively small area. If that area is near a town or towns, if it includes areas for hunting, camping, fishing, skiing, etc, and if the lifetime of the creature spans decades, then it is not so unlikely that evidence of the creature would be discovered. There are a lot of variables to consider before you can say "incredibly easy".

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

While it is an almost certain biological impossibility for a POPULATION of them to go undetected, It is not unlikely for a single one to evade detection. That is like looking for a missing person in all of that rugged, temperate rainforest.

One of the reasons why missing people are hard to find is because there's alot of us. Also you pretty much shot yourself in the foot, if it's a certain biological impossibility for a population of them to go undetected. Then where is the evidence of that population?

 

[kitakaze]

I didn't want to start another Bigfoot thread, so I'll put this here. There are two new books on Bigfoot. Both are from a skeptical viewpoint.

The Seattle Times reviews...

Big Foot: Books discuss life and afterlife of a Northwest icon


Amazon listings...

Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend

To the white working-class men who are his biggest fans, Buhs contends, Bigfoot is an icon of untamed masculinity, a populist rebel against scientific elites, the last champion of authentic reality against a plastic, image-driven, effeminate consumer society.

Buhs is at his amused best when following the exploits of bigfoot's human handlers—the colorful band of true believers, hoaxers and pseudo-documentarists who constructed this greatest of all shaggy-hominid stories.

Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot

Part history, part road trip, and part biography, this is the true story of a remarkable group of men whose obsession with Bigfoot turned the giant hominid into an American icon. Award-winning journalist Michael McLeod tells of Bigfoot's rise to tabloid stardom in a fast-paced account that begins with his own journey to investigate a famous 1967 film clip of a Bigfoot in a California forest. McLeod proceeds to uncover a trail of clues reaching from the late nineteenth century, when a few ambitious, imaginative naturalists and explorers synthesized historical and indigenous folklore with Darwinian ideas and speculated that a proto-hominid "missing link" might still be alive in remote areas. That speculation would eventually inspire a colorful cast of loggers, hunters, con artists, and businessmen in the twentieth century to create the modern myth of Bigfoot, all of them angling for a piece of a monster that the media and the public still can't get enough of. Told through vividly narrated interviews and anecdotes, Anatomy of a Beast offers a unique perspective on the deep roots of counterfactual thinking--and how obsession and myth are created out of it.

Wow. Excellent find, WP. These books look absolutely fantastic and to be honest I'm a little surprised at the release of not one but two books dealing with Bigfoot as a social construct. I'm even a little envious as these are exactly the types of books I would like to write on the subject of Bigfootery.

Joshua Blu Buhs' Big Foot: The Life and Times of a Legend looks like a more focused examination of the nexus and metamorphosis of Woods & Wildmen, the sub-culture that is Bigfootery. I think the observations of the original appeal of Bigfoot in men's magazines like "Argosy" and "True" is very astute. These are some images from that period of Bigfootery:





That element of Bigfootery in which you have a male dominated sub-culture of people who see themselves as maverick thinkers swimming against the current of a clueless, comfortable in their recliners society in pursuit of a greater truth is everywhere in Bigfootery now. Many of these guys are devoutly religious which seems at odds with the evolutionary theories floated about regarding Bigfoot's origins. Here are some of the Bigfoot educators...

Don Keating doing it:





Randy Harrington (driveroperator) doing it:





Rick Noll doing it:





Tom Biscardi doing it:



Quote from Tom's internet minister son, Lance, at 3:00:

"I believe he exists. I believe Jesus created him."

The next book, Michael McLeod's Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot is more of a focus on exactly how Bigfootery came into being. This is probably the first book I would like to read of the two. From the Seattle Times link that WP provided details a book that is exactly in line with the ideas I've written about in the native myth thread concerning what sources early the proto-Bigfoot was created from by westerners in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I think it's very needed to have a a book that focuses on the early players of Bigfootery like Patterson, Green, Dahinden, etc. I think when you look at Bigfoot as a social construct as these authors have, we can see things fitting a very predictable pattern. I'm looking forward to reading both these books. Thanks, WP.

 

[William Parcher]

I think the observations of the original appeal of Bigfoot in men's magazines like "Argosy" and "True" is very astute.

And of course, Saga Magazine. That links to an interesting article from 1973 featuring Tom Biscardi and Gene Findley.


Thirty-six years ago...

"If he's out there," Findley mutters grimly, eyes straining to spot jagged peaks in the inky darkness, "we'll find him!"

"And we're going find him," says stocky, black-haired Tom Biscardi, grimacing as he rubbed his still-swollen ankles. We are back in his luxurious San Jose, Calif., apartment, waiting for the latest word on any sightings from Ivan Marx and the other six members of the Alaskan expedition. "I'm the drum beater," Biscardi says. "Hell, somebody's got to do it. I've sunk so much money in this thing now--so has Gene -- that I have bad dreams at night. There's this huge bill collector dressed up in a Bigfoot suit..."

 

[kitakaze]

Thirty-six years ago...

And the beat goes on...

I think WP was right in not throwing another Bigfoot thread on the pile for these books but these books I think are a loose fit for this thread. Maybe we should have a general thread for new Bigfoot literature.

While I was composing my previous post I was listening to DB Donlon and Billy Willard's Sasquatch Watch Radio with Scott Herriott and around the 40 minute mark he just happened to mention reading Joshua Blu Buhs' book and how he was impressed with it. Small coincidence. I was just listening to see if he had anything to say about the Yakima wave of mutilation.

Anyway, I was interested in some of the reviews of McLeod's book from WP's link. Here's one by a friend and fellow writer that I thought was interesting:

Looking at the reviews posted previously, I'm struck by obliviousness to the obvious. "Anatomy of a Beast" is the work of a disappointed lover.

One does steep oneself in the lore of Bigfoot for better than 12 years without having an itch to find a hole in conventional wisdom. Mike McLeod is a friend of mine and we discussed this project frequently during the book's long gestation. I'm here to tell you that there were periods when he thought evidence might confirm the existence of the Beast. A primary citation, after all, was David Rains Wallace's "Klamath Knot". (Page 65: "Like Wallace, 'I wondered if my motives for going into wilderness might be more obscure, and more profound, than I had realized. While part of me was going into the mountains seeking the pleasures of exercise, self-reliance, accomplishment, and natural history, it seemed that another part was looking for things of which I had only a vague conscious awareness, as though a remote mountain or desert releases some innate human behavior, a kind of instinctive predilection for the mysterious'.")

Monstrous fanatics traffic in mystery, and so do poets. An appetite for the uncanny is not necessarily a crime, it is just perilous. The myth of self-reliance is big in western American, and so is the Beast. McLeod's depiction of the Bigfoot fanatics is tough love, he sees himself in them. And his fondness is palpable. But they cause him to worry about himself, the possibility of being carried away, a phenomenon he researched rather carefully.

But an assessment of the book is appropriate, not a response to its poignantly gullible detractors. People in the Pacific Northwest are big readers and there is high interest in books that convey a sense of this place. "Anatomy of a Beast" is right up there Kesey and Don Berry.

And so.

Don't hurt It (thank you Peter Byrne, who abandoned a sponsor who wanted It killed and stuffed); get a PhotoShop inoculated picture of It; secure It's DNA; find a footprint that is not ridiculous; coax It down for a palaver. We'd love to have It manifest. But that, sadly, hasn't happened.

On the same page I found I comment with an informative link regarding McLeod's book:

Anyone interested in this book would do well to also listen to the UC interview podcast with Mr. McLeod for more background information on Mr. McLeod and how the book came about. http://www.ucpress.edu/podcast/

Here's a direct link to the show:

http://www.ucpress.edu/podcast/?file=11135

I think it's fantastic that talented writers are getting into Bigfootery and examining it as a sub-culture and Bigfoot as a social construct. Until we have something meaningful to look at, that's all it is to me.