Original subtitles

- 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.