Thursday, December 4, 2014

Utah's first "Big Foot' report and the first mention of a Sasquatch

TODAY 'Bigfoot' is synonymous with an elusive creature of unknown origin.
However, more than a century ago and more than a half-century before the "Bigfoot" name would be coined for the Sasquatch creature, there was another "Bigfoot."
According to the Twin Falls News newspaper of Jan. 26, 1906, a Native American nicknamed "Bigfoot" was a renegade who led a Piute band of Snake Indians on area settlers.
-Utah's first reported "Big foot" was not a mysterious beast at all, either. It was a wolf. "Wily trapper seeks scalp of old 'Big Foot'" was a Sept. 5, 1919 headline in the Salt Lake Herald newspaper. The reward for killing the elusive wolf, who preyed on cattle and sheep in remote San Juan County, was $1,000. Some kind of foot injury gave the wolf a distinctive flatted foot and hence its "Big Foot" name.
-The first printed media mention of the word "Sasquatch" in Utah was in the Salt Lake Telegram of March 2, 1934. This WASN'T a sighting in Utah, but in British Columbia.
"Hairy Giant spreads terror in Canada. Appearance of wild man revives legend of vanished race of cave dwellers" was the headline off the United Press service.
The news report stated that there had been three sightings of the creature, called Sasquatch by the area's Native Americans, the Harrison area, east of Vancouver.
Area Indians said many years ago a whole tribe of the wild men lived in the region. They lived in caves and hunted with clubs and stones.
-The next media mention in Utah of Sasquatch was in the Provo Daily Herald of March 23, 1949. This report mentioned the creatures as living in the Ruby Lake area of British Columbia. The headline of the story was, "Tales from tall timber reported."

Fake Bigfoot stunts in Utah

FAKING Bigfoot sightings or footprints is one of the worst things possible against a true pursuit of the elusive creature.

The two worst incidents in the State of Utah are decades old. Hopefully, there won't be any more:

-"Dixie has a 'Bigfoot'" was an Aug. 13, 1977 headline in the Color County Spectrum newspaper.
According to the story, a young man, Ithamar Sprague, admitted to planting fake large footprints around town.
(-Ironically, less than 2 weeks later, the state's first big media reported sighting would happen in the High Uintas.) 

-"Bigfoot just myth, Prints prove it" was a Dec. 15, 1977 headline in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Some kids in Hunter City (now a part of West Valley City) faked footprints around town.

Friday, November 28, 2014

The first-ever fictional "Bigfoot" mention on TV?

I stumbled across what may well be the first time Bigfoot got a mention in a fictional television series ....

On Feb. 3, 1963, the humorous TV series, "Dennis the Menace" aired an episode titled, "The Creature with Big Feet."

"Dennis" buys some large monster shoes and wears them in a neighbor's garden and inadvertently spawns a Bigfoot report.

The series included a news report of Bigfoot apparently trying to steal a pig from a farm as to why the neighbor suspected it was "Bigfoot."
The neighbor digs a pit, hides it and tries to capture the creature.
Was all in good fun, especially for 51 years ago. 

Friday, July 11, 2014

Why is a 'paranormal' Bigfoot so hard to accept?

I listened to a one-hour radio show on Bigfoot recently.
One of the guests claimed to have seen multiple Bigfoots numerous times.
He even said once his camera malfunctioned during a sighting.
However, he still held to the idea that these are just intelligent, but secretive animals roaming around.
Logically, I don't see how that fits the parameters at all.
If Bigfoot was an animal we'd have clear photographs/videos by now and likely even bones and DNA evidence.
We have none of those.
So, man can walk on the moon, unravel the mysteries of DNA and create nuclear weapons, but he can't substantiate Bigfoot?
I believe there are both angels and demon creatures out there. Bigfoot is the latter.
He will never be substantiated by standard means. He is ultimately beyond the power of mortal men.
Bigfoot can disappear at will. He can make tracks (or not), throw rocks, make noises and do some physical things. Yet, he is NOT 
One of man's main shortcomings is his arrogance. He can't/won't readily admit there's something roaming around out there that is supernatural and beyond his grasp.
But, Bigfoot is really out there.
Bigfoot in his own way proves there is a God as much as an angel does.
We'd all be better off if we would seek angels with the same vigor as the Bigfoot ("demons,") but yes Bigfoot is an enticing mystery, though clearly a supernatural one and all the scientists in the world aren't going to prove, or disprove Bigfoot's existence. 

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Possible 1902 Bigfoot encounter in Southern Idaho

The Ogden Standard-Examiner had this headline on January 28, 1902:
"Frightened by a long-haired creature"

A party of young people were skating on the Portneuf River near Chesterfield, Idaho (Caribou County, north of Grace and Preston and northeast of Soda Springs) and reported being visited "by an eight-foot-all-hair covered human monster."
The creature was aggressive and held a large stick. The party fled in wagons.
However, some of the young men returned with guns and saw the creature warming itself by their fire.
The said it was at least eight-feet-tall and had long reddish hair. Even the face was covered with hair.
They chose not to shoot at it.
The next morning, many large naked tracks with only four toes were found in the area.
Stockmen in the area have said they have seen similar tracks along the river over the years, but this was the first report of anyone seeing the creature who made these tracks in the area.
Twenty men went out in search of the beast, to capture it, as many in the area felt unsafe now.
(I have many relatives in Grace and Pocatello, but have never been able to gleam any Bigfoot stories from any of them, so it was a surprise to find this account ...)
Note: Today Chesterfield in a tourist ghost town, only inhabited in the summer. The Pourtneuf River eventually runs through Lava Hot Springs, to the southwest.

--Below is a link one can cut and paste to read the newspaper account first hand:

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Why no one takes Bigfoot sightings seriously ...

There are 2 major reasons why no one takes Bigfoot sightings seriously these days:

1. The hoaxers who claim to have killed a Bigfoot and that they have the body. Of course, they never do. It is a complete lie. They demean the serious pursuits.

2. Absolutely inaccurate basic information in sighting reports

Example: in January of 2014, Animal Planet posts a top 10 sightings list of Bigfoot encounters.
For their No. 9 ranking, in Utah, they butcher not only the location place, but they are hundreds of miles off in their geography.
Anyone can misspell something, but no one did any homework here, in this report.
There's just no excuse for this kind of sloppy reporting.
Two minutes on a simple Google search could have avoided all of this.

In the listing, the problem is the Utah town Scipio is misspelled "Scripio" and Scipio is actually 180 miles north of St. George, so it is far loser to Provo or even Salt Lake City.
To use St. George as a nearby major town makes no sense.

A link to the story:

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Why so few pre-1950s Bigfoot sightings?

"Bigfoot" wasn't even a term coined until 1958 and begs the key question, why are there so relatively few Sasquatch sightings before the 1950s?
Sure, there are some Native American tales of what could be Bigfoot, but Bigfoot sightings didn't really escalate into widespread notoriety until the latter half of the 20th Century.
Again, why?
Naturally, surely the lack of a name for such a creature, before 1958, didn't help the reporting of sightings either.
However,  if Bigfoots are natural animals, as many suggest, how did they remain hidden so long?
Wouldn't advancing and increasing settlers in North America -- especially in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains -- have displaced the usual stalking grounds of Bigfoots in the 1800s?
Buffalo were all but wiped out. Native Americas were displaced to reservations. Grizzlies were left in only a few locations.
How did Bigfoots escape the same fate?
Just to be fair, I recently spent hours scanning through recently digitized newspapers from Northern Utah in the late 19th Century into the 1920s, searching for anything unusual reported, that could be a Bigfoot.
I looked under a variety of keywords -- things like: monster, creature, beast, gorilla, ape, etc. I even searched for "footprints"
I found zero in Utah Territory.
I did find an 1892 report of a "wild man" that was shot in Africa as it attacked a group of explorers. But nothing about the man being hairy or Bigfoot monster-like, just that he was very muscular.
I also found a Canadian report from 1927 about the "Gorilla Man" being captured. However, this was simply a fugitive from the law, who somehow received that nickname by living in the outdoors to avoid capture.
(Also, there are few non-Utah old tales around, of "Wild Men," or "Old Shep" and the like, but nothing in real quantity.)
Yes, some people might not have reported weird things, like a Bigfoot, for fear of ridicule (a fear some have today too), but wouldn't someone have been brave and convinced enough to come forward?
After all, there are reports of three lake monsters in early northern Utah -- the Bear Lake, Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake monsters.
Why not Bigfoot? Or, am I right that there were simply few sightings until more modern times ....?
This brings up my continuing conundrum on this blog -- Bigfoot simply can't be an unknown beast as most of the seekers, like the BFRO, professes it to be.
I'm insulted by all the TV shows now where people "whoop" call for Bigfoot, look for game in the area, test animal feces, etc., all as if Bigfoot is just some unknown animal.
There's one new TV reality show now airing that offers a $10 million prize to which ever team on the series finds the most evidence of the creature.
That's baloney to me.
Yes, I agree Bigfoot is absolutely out there. He's real.
But, he's simply supernatural and only that aspect alone explains his existence and his secrets. He can't be tracked, or photographed  like other animals.
(With all the camera phones and like around today, surely someone would finally snap a clear photo of the creature?)
Bigfoot is more like a ghost, of something that can cloak itself at will. He finds you, not the opposite.
So, why then did Bigfoot not gain fame until the latter half of the 20th Century?
I believe Bigfoot is a supernatural demon of sorts. He gains power to be seen more often as the world becomes more evil and wicked itself. Hence, the increase in sightings from the 1960s on, as the planet's population  becomes more sinful.
If the world were more good and god-like, there would be more angelic sightings. Now, the planet is tilted to the dark side.
Why is it so hard to other Bigfoot enthusiasts to believe this? Many of them believe in God and this is simply the opposite of God -- demons who counterbalance good, like Satan, the Devil himself.
On the one hand, yes, I'd like to see a Bigfoot for curiosity's sake. Yet, to do so, means you have to see and be near a "devil" and that would be a frightening experience. Angel-seeking would be a more worthy endeavor, but yes, I'm drawn to mysteries.
-Perhaps I or someone needs to start a new group -- The BISO (Bigfoot Is Supernatural Organization), to look outside the box of the normal sighting seekers and consider new options.