_A.png)
By James Alex Gerard
A number of you may have heard about -- as I did when I was younger -- of the supposed attack several "Bigfoot-type" creatures waged upon a group of miners in 1924. Occurring in the Mount St. Helens, Wash., area, the incident apparently gained a measure of publicity at the time, and went on to become the stuff that legends are made of.
It wasn't until last year that I came across a firsthand account -- from one of the participants -- at the following URL:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm
This miner, Fred Beck of Kelso, Wash., described the events of that incident in 1967 (oddly enough, shortly before the Roger Patterson-Bob Gimlin film) to his son. It is posted as a short -- but riveting -- book that's posted online there: "I Fought The Apemen Of Mount St. Helens, WA."
Beck As "Major Thinker;" Story Met With Skepticism
I must say that this is among the most complex of "Bigfoot Tales" I've ever read. And I read a lot of them. If anyone is interested in Beck's account, please read it online -- rather than have me ramble on with what I think. Please be sure to read the entire work, because the last chapter seems very insightful for just "some old boy from some boondocks" to surmise and perceive as he describes.
Mr. Beck is a major thinker to me, although a number of critics emerged through the years to attack Beck's character. I can relate firsthand to what he says about being clairvoyant, and experiencing things beyond the "normal senses" that most do not. And despite the accounts that labeled Beck a liar, basically, I feel there is something truly behind what he says.
But I encourage the power of independent thought, so I'd like any of the forum members here to draw their own conclusions. I did read that Becks claims he never made a dime from his account and didn't want to. If so, that is a hard thing to find in a world where so many hoaxers seek some measure of fame and profit for staging purposeful deceptions and downright lying about what they present as evidence -- and supposed truth.
You Can't Libel The Dead
I've learned something useful things during my years in journalism, including the following. There's a simple rule of "tell-all stories" that people should be aware of. In the United States' legal system, you can't libel the dead. Anyone can write a work -- or say anything -- about a deceased person and be safe from the responsibility of character defamation.
After Roger Patterson's death, his name and reputation were discredited. He indeed may have had some "shady traits," but he's been basically convicted of creating a fraud with the 1967 film of the supposed Bigfoot. Beck may share that share measure, becoming discredited as a liar and hoaxer after his own death as well.
It comes down to this, fellow readers: Fred Beck's Account of the 1924 "Ape Canyon" Incident: Do You Believe Him?
-----------------------------------
Original Post At: http://forum.bigfoot24-7.com/User/Discussion.aspx?id=218867
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
How "Primitive" Is The Bigfoot Species? Perhaps Not At All...
By James Alex Gerard
There's just been too many accounts through too many years -- even those predating the European presence in North America -- to dismiss Bigfoot as some myth. At least that is my view.
It's been theorized that the Bigfoot is some "primitive creature" or such. But I think a bit differently about that. It obviously is on the Earth today for a reason. Its kind survived the process of natural selection. It was selected to survive. For a reason. Therefore, I conclude it had to evolve to do that. So how "primitive" could it be? I feel it would have to have a level of advancement. Even possibly possessing a social order and language.
Overall, the Bigfoot species doesn't seem to want to harm mankind. Just avoid our kind -- for a reason. Could the Bigfoot species know more about other forms of life than we realize? Or recognize somehow that 'the other two-legged one" (us) is more advanced, and has mechanical devices and tremendous structures?
Is it more at mankind being civilized, in the most basic sense of the word?
And several weeks ago, a guest on the "Coast To Coast" radio talk show described his four-month, solitary stay in the Pacific Northwest wilderness while searching for Bigfoot. The guest stated that, considering what it's like to exist out there," he's not surprised anymore how such an adaptive species can exist without detection. Or lives in the heart of that wilderness with little or no traces.
I feel the Bigfoot species has evolved and has survived because it established a niche -- and stayed there. I feel those of the Bigfoot species know there is nothing mankind offers that's advantageous to its survival, and brings nothing of substance into its world.
Now who's the advanced being?
There's just been too many accounts through too many years -- even those predating the European presence in North America -- to dismiss Bigfoot as some myth. At least that is my view.
It's been theorized that the Bigfoot is some "primitive creature" or such. But I think a bit differently about that. It obviously is on the Earth today for a reason. Its kind survived the process of natural selection. It was selected to survive. For a reason. Therefore, I conclude it had to evolve to do that. So how "primitive" could it be? I feel it would have to have a level of advancement. Even possibly possessing a social order and language.
Overall, the Bigfoot species doesn't seem to want to harm mankind. Just avoid our kind -- for a reason. Could the Bigfoot species know more about other forms of life than we realize? Or recognize somehow that 'the other two-legged one" (us) is more advanced, and has mechanical devices and tremendous structures?
Is it more at mankind being civilized, in the most basic sense of the word?
And several weeks ago, a guest on the "Coast To Coast" radio talk show described his four-month, solitary stay in the Pacific Northwest wilderness while searching for Bigfoot. The guest stated that, considering what it's like to exist out there," he's not surprised anymore how such an adaptive species can exist without detection. Or lives in the heart of that wilderness with little or no traces.
I feel the Bigfoot species has evolved and has survived because it established a niche -- and stayed there. I feel those of the Bigfoot species know there is nothing mankind offers that's advantageous to its survival, and brings nothing of substance into its world.
Now who's the advanced being?
Monday, February 1, 2010
The 2002 Mount St. Helens photos: Cause For Skepticism?
By James Alex Gerard
I encountered this web page last year, and again it's another of those "no way to know for sure" recorded "supposed-Bigfoot sightings." There's also an accompanying story:
http://www.mountsthelens.com/bigfoot.html
I note the apparent plausibility of the story behind those photos. It sounds like something like that could happen. Note the incident details, right down to the described body odor apparently emanating from the "Bigfoot subject." There are a number of accounts which I feel are credible that describe the Bigfoot examples as having some form of extreme, prominent body odor.
But it's the photographs themselves than bring out the skeptic in me. There's no clear front view or facial detail. In one shot, some evidence of the face is apparent, but that looks like it's some kind of mask to me. I can see an "outlined area" near the eyes, as if it's an ill-fitted costume application. Again, this is merely my own view, and I will gladly admit I could be wrong.
But even more unconvincing to me is the physical attributes of the subject itself. I note the lack of musculature or definition, unlike the Patterson-Gimlin film subject. And the subject doesn't appear broad enough to me, unless this is one scrawny, ill or malnourished Bigfoot. Now, this could be a smaller, immature or juvenile example, but the build looks just "too human" to me.
In addition, the Mount St. Helens' subject has uniform, brown body hair or fur. That's a trademark of the Bigfoot costumes I've seen. I've even seen one getup which mirrors what I see illustrated in those photos, a "Sasquatch Adult Halloween Costume."
At this point, I'll say I doubt the photographs are those of a real Bigfoot example. It's possible that in some cases, the camera persons are unaware that they're being hoaxed themselves by a third party, so I keep that in mind as I evaluate these accounts.
-----------------------------------
Original Post At: http://forum.bigfoot24-7.com/User/Discussion.aspx?id=218565
I encountered this web page last year, and again it's another of those "no way to know for sure" recorded "supposed-Bigfoot sightings." There's also an accompanying story:
http://www.mountsthelens.com/bigfoot.html
I note the apparent plausibility of the story behind those photos. It sounds like something like that could happen. Note the incident details, right down to the described body odor apparently emanating from the "Bigfoot subject." There are a number of accounts which I feel are credible that describe the Bigfoot examples as having some form of extreme, prominent body odor.
But it's the photographs themselves than bring out the skeptic in me. There's no clear front view or facial detail. In one shot, some evidence of the face is apparent, but that looks like it's some kind of mask to me. I can see an "outlined area" near the eyes, as if it's an ill-fitted costume application. Again, this is merely my own view, and I will gladly admit I could be wrong.
But even more unconvincing to me is the physical attributes of the subject itself. I note the lack of musculature or definition, unlike the Patterson-Gimlin film subject. And the subject doesn't appear broad enough to me, unless this is one scrawny, ill or malnourished Bigfoot. Now, this could be a smaller, immature or juvenile example, but the build looks just "too human" to me.
In addition, the Mount St. Helens' subject has uniform, brown body hair or fur. That's a trademark of the Bigfoot costumes I've seen. I've even seen one getup which mirrors what I see illustrated in those photos, a "Sasquatch Adult Halloween Costume."
At this point, I'll say I doubt the photographs are those of a real Bigfoot example. It's possible that in some cases, the camera persons are unaware that they're being hoaxed themselves by a third party, so I keep that in mind as I evaluate these accounts.
-----------------------------------
Original Post At: http://forum.bigfoot24-7.com/User/Discussion.aspx?id=218565
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Fight Plagiarism!
