www.sasquatch-bc.com
Fraser Valley , British Columbia

     

Home

About us

F.A.Q

Profiles

Forum

Contact Us!

Links

 

 

In the Beginning..

J. W. Burns

Rene Dahinden

Bob Titmus

John Green

The British Columbia Classics

Sasquatch Country

 
My chat with Chris Murphy; Part II

May, 2005
Burnaby, B.C., Canada

GC: "With all of the controversy surrounding the P/G film..has any valuable information come out of it to enlighten and bolster Sasquatch research? Or is it a bump in the linear study of the Sasquatch, which stands on its own? A singular curiousity? Or a detramental shrine which has been given way too much value?"

In a nut-shell, the Patterson/Gimlin film is a paradox (an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises). There can be no argument that the film exists, and that it does depict a physical primate of some sort. Now, to claim that the primate seen is not an ordinary human being, contradicts established scientific findings. There are no other primates native to North American other than human beings (i.e., none that have been proven beyond a doubt to exist). To claim that the primate seen is a human being (man in a costume), contradicts what can be seen in the film (i.e., detailed scientific examination indicates that it is a natural being).

Both sides of the argument now get "heaped" with ton's of circumstantial evidence which amounts to absolutely nothing. The "non-human group" (bigfooters) point to thousands of bigfoot sightings, footprints and a raft of other evidence. While this does increase the likelihood that the filmed creature is non-human, it does not prove anything. The "human group:" points to testimony (what people have said), and the fact that there is no conclusive hard evidence for such creatures. While this might satisfy some people on the issue, again it does not prove anything.

The only way the film can be either positively authenticated or debunked is by finding evidence supporting either stand within the film itself. To do this, one needs to look at details that are far beyond the film resolution. Looking for hoax indicators is futile because even if they were there, they would not be visible - both because they would probably be hidden in the first place, and because they would be too small to see. The only exception here would be a long seam or row of zipper teeth, but even finding something that might appear to be such would be highly inconclusive. So, we have a stalemate: one can't point to the lack of hoax indicators as proof the creature is real, nor can one find such indicators to prove it is a hoax.

The evidence we have that indicates the creature is a natural being, in my opinion, outweighs evidence to the contrary. Here, I am referring to the conclusions reached by the North American Science Institute and the Russian hominologists, Igor Bourtsev and Dmitri Bayanov. Nevertheless, there is absolutely no way one could prove authenticity beyond a reasonable doubt. One can't get DNA from a strip of 16mm film. Here I might add that if someone were to come up with a moth-eaten costume that appeared to match the filmed creature, how can it be proven it is the same costume?

Even if the sasquatch is never found, the possibility that one of its kind did exist and was filmed walking along a sandbar at Bluff Creek, California in October 1967 will remain

GC: "Because of the internet, is there too much information washing over us now and how do we interpret such?? Instead of studying evidence one has to spend, more and more, time deciding if something 'is' evidence before it can labeled and filed it away. Should we worry? Is all information important information? Or must every little snippet of information be filtered carefully, as to its worth, before being presented before sceptics? Or can we relax and allow the 'creme' of good information to still rise to the top pretty much on its own merits? Does our community require watchdogs and self policing? "

The internet certainly brought about more reported incidents. There were probably just as many before, but we did not hear of them. Prior to the internet, if one had a sighting, he or she did not have many choices for making the information known. The media took some, some appeared in letters to major researchers (Dahinden had a big box full) and the rest went nowhere. Now, one a has a choice of numerous websites. By the same token, there is likely more fabricated incident reports as a result of the internet. However, I don't believe such are significant in number because there is nothing to gain

. It is interesting to note that when computers were introduced into the general business world, we found out just how inefficient we had been. The same can be said for the internet as it applies to sasquatch sightings. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that as the people population grows, and more and more people go into wilderness areas, then more sightings will result. This is not an indication of more sasquatch, just more eyes to see them.

Whatever the case, that there are now too many reports to deal with is very true. Here, however, we need to come to grips with the advantage of dealing with reports. Sending someone out to talk with the witness seldom results in getting any more information than what we already have. Verifying the report does not get us any closer to resolving the issue. Really, the only reports we should be looking at are those that include a photograph/video, hard evidence (scat or hair) or the likelihood that the creature is still in the area. I am not saying that reports are useless, they do provide statistics and ongoing encouragement.

I think the point needs to be made that sighting investigations are a reactive process. Really, what we are doing is waiting around for some individual (tourist, truck driver, camper and so forth) to have a sighting. We then hope that the individual will report the incident, and if he or she does, we hope to be able to come up with some hard evidence related to the incident (footprints, hair, feces). We even hope that the creature might still be around. This is a lot of "hoping." If you think about it, there are very few people actually looking for the creature, and one cannot really expect to find something if he does not look for it. We need to get proactive and go out specifically and look for the creature (like Patterson and Gimlin). Where should we look? The obvious answer here is, "where there have been the most recorded sightings," but I am not of that opinion. I believe northern Canada is the best bet, specifically British Columbia. The only reason there have not be a lot of sightings "up there" is because there are so few people.

The same situation here applies to all animals. If one wishes to photograph and study a wild animal, then the best thing to do is to go to the place where the animal normally resides. Certainly, one can hang around in local parks and hope that the animal of choice shows up - which it certainly might do, but chances are very slim. A case in point here is that of a wolverine that wandered down into Port Moody. It was injured (I believe by a car), and great care was taken to restore it back to health (it was even given a root canal) and return it to the wilderness. In many ways, we are waiting for the same thing to occur with a sasquatch.

Page Three


John Green

Thomas Steenburg

Chris Murphy

Dr. John Bindernagel

Hancock House

British Columbia Scientific Cryptzoology Club

 

 

GC's interview with John Green

GC's interview with Chris Murphy

GC's interview with Thomas Steenburg

Reports

Send in a Report!

Revisiting Reports!

Audio Section!

 

Sasquatch Art Section

Shopping

Sasquatch Scene ( under construction )