One of the most important things to remember as a researcher interviewing a witness, who claims to have had a Sasquatch encounter, is to not assume anything as to the truth of the claim, until you have all the facts. The most important fact that must be kept in mind is the reality that this whole mystery is still ongoing.
The existence of this creature is still not accepted by society at large. Their existence is unproven, unconfirmed, and hotly-debated. Therefore, if the the Sasquatch does not exist – nor ever did – the undeniable facts are that every witness who claims a Sasquatch sighting is either mistaken, or lying. If the Sasquatch does exist then it is safe to assume that a fair number of people who claimed to have seen one, did see one.
Unfortunately, false claims are only reduced a small percentage, if indeed the Sasquatch does exist. With the internet and various other mainstream media programs now trying to cash in on this whole subject, claiming to have seen a Sasquatch does not necessarily evoke the dread it used to back when I started research in the 1970s. Back then witnesses, for the most part, seemed to be more concerned with not having friends or family members questioning their sanity; or having fingers pointed at them.
Seeing a Sasquatch and going public had some social consequences attached. This is still on some peoples minds today, however, I have noticed a strange shift in public attitude concerning this whole thing. Today, it almost seems trendy to claim to have seen a Sasquatch, whether true or not.
I have been contacted by a fair number of people trying to tell me some of the most incredible stories hoping I would refer them to the ‘Finding Bigfoot’ television show. One only has to listen to Coast to Coast Radio for a week to hear people claiming the most ridiculous things. For these, and other reasons a serious researcher must, when interviewing any eyewitness’, maintain a healthy sense of skepticism.
Skepticism is the best quality a good researcher can have, so long as it is not accompanied with closed-mindedness. Always remember: we are researchers trying to find an answer to an ongoing mystery – not religious leaders trying to push a faith.
Thomas Steenburg
Strange noises in the woods are simply that, strange noises in the woods – unless you saw what made them. Too often researchers, and the public in general, assume they are Sasquatch-related for no other reason than they just failed to recognize them. Or they make their skin crawl.
Now we have a fair number of researchers who spend almost all of their time howling at the moon, or call-blasting over loud speakers; assuming that whatever is out there is calling back, or simply responding to the activities in alarm, must be Sasquatch? To my thinking, this is wishful thinking gone amok. Just because you cannot fathom what else may be out there making some strange call, does not mean a Sasquatch is responsible. You will be surprised by what strange, and even frightening, animal vocalizations turn out to be from the most mundane and common wildlife.
In 2006, I was deeply involved in the investigation which has become known as the Chehalis Sounds; a collection of audio recordings by frightened residents in an area known as the Chehalis Flats. This area lies just south and outside the Chehalis First Nation Reserve on the Harrison River, in the lower mainland of British Columbia. These recordings were amazing, to say the least, and were identical to a number of well-known recordings from Washington and northern California, which many – including myself – were sure in the end would turn out to be Sasquatch in origin.
Many hours were spent, by myself and in company with others, trying to find an answer to the cause of these incredible cries. On April 5th 2006, in the early morning hours, myself and Gerry Mathews were out on the Chehalis Flats again. This time, we personally heard the vocalizations ourselves and witnessed what made them. Coyotes. I was shocked as I thought I knew every sound a coyote made having lived with them all around me most of my life. This was something different.
But when we publicly announced our findings, I was surprised at the reaction, and at times hostile reaction, from other researchers who simply did not want to admit that these sounds, as well as other famous ones which were the same, could be anything other than Sasquatch in origin. They just didn’t want to hear it. This revealed a good deal more as to the mentality of many researchers than whether or not a Sasquatch was responsible for these recordings, in my view. Sounds in the woods are simply that – sounds in the woods – unless you see what is making them; as evidence they are useless, even if it was a Sasquatch.
Thomas Steenburg
Researchers in this field of study must remain on guard against developing an inflated ego. When recognition for past work, for the most part, seems to be looked upon with favour it is too easy to become pigheaded, and develop a sense of ‘I am always right and others who disagree with me are always wrong’.
I have had a great many arguments in the past that I now regret, as I realize the person with whom I was arguing with, might have indeed had a valid point. It is easy to fall into the trap of arrogance. However, to realize you have made a mistake, yet continue to move in a direction you know is wrong, is by far, much worse.
One of my own cases was dealing with a well-known Sasquatch skeptic, the late Michael Dennet. Mr. Dennet had always been very critical of so-called evidence brought forward by the late Paul Freeman. In the early 1980s, I believed Paul Freeman and most of the evidence he brought forward, and defended him much longer than perhaps should have. I also had a few long, drawn-out debates with Mr Dennet concerning Freeman’s findings and conclusions.
Well, over time – and looking into the matter – I studied the evidence, I talked to people involved and I learned things. I can say, right here and now, that in the case of the late Paul Freeman, the late Mr. Dennet was right and I was wrong.
Being wrong is nothing to be afraid of. We all make mistakes in the Sasquatch field, and admitting to them takes nothing away from a researcher’s credibility. In fact, in my view, it improves it.
So, if there are any researchers out there whom may feel now, after much sober, second thought, that perhaps they had been taken in somewhat by, oh I don’t know, Todd Standing; or perhaps a researcher was a little to quick to jump on the Massacre at Bluff Creek band wagon, it is far better to admit to a mistake than carry on knowing you are wrong. Or even just going silent on a particular issue hoping the whole thing just blows over.
Making mistakes is a learning experience. I now always listen to what people have to say, even if I disagree with them. I will always keep an open mind when doing so even though they’re wrong! 😛
Thomas Steenburg
This is a blog interview which was aired Dec 4th, 2014. The program is called, ‘Spaced Out Radio’ and is hosted by Dave Scott. I think I surprised him with some of my answers? Enjoy…
Thomas Steenburg
I have noticed, especially since the wide-spread use of the internet, that claims of structures, nests, shelters, twisted trees and many other things have been put forward by many in the Sasquatch field as an established fact.
I, myself, have come across many such strange things out in the bush while searching for evidence. Their existence I cannot deny, however what I have NOT found is any evidence, whatsoever, that the Sasquatch had anything to do with them. Personally, I think that when an idea or possibility is repeated often enough, and over a length of time, many start to assume such possibilities as established facts, even though there really has been no evidence to support such assumptions.
The twisted tree theory goes way back to its origin in Northern California during the Pacific Northwest Expedition. The late Robert Titmus first made the suggestion when he noticed the tops of small trees broken off, and wondered if Bigfoot was the cause; perhaps a marker of some kind? He was never really convinced of this, he just wondered at the possibility. And yes, I did know the late Robert Titmus, and had discussed this issue with him on a number of occasions.
However, over the years, the suggestion took on a life of its own. Over time, due mostly to others finding such damaged trees, it led to documentaries and docudramas on television. As well, a number of attention seekers breaking and twisting things on their own, while claiming Sasquatch was responsible. The result is within the research community as a whole, many now think of this as an established fact. In reality it isn’t.
The same holds true for so-called nests, shelters, stick structures, etc., etc., all of which have came about as just possibilities suggested, but over time have morphed into a reality in the minds of many researchers who have accepted the connection without a thought. I don’t deny the possibility that perhaps the Sasquatch could be responsible for some type of nest, or damaging trees in ways or for reasons we do not yet understand.
However, in the 37 years I have been involved with this, I have talked and interviewed well over 100 people who claim to have seen a Sasquatch (not even counting obvious hoax attempts); I have talked to many people who have come across twisted or broken off trees. But I have never heard of one witness (at least reliable) who watched a Sasquatch twist or break a tree. The same holds true for shelters, nests, stick structures, etc. That is not to say that such activity does or never happens, I am just saying that so far I have seen no evidence of it.
Thomas Steenburg
Today, January 25, 2015, a group of us went out to an old stomping ground for me; a location in the lower mainland which none of my friends had been before. I myself had not been back to this area for over a year. New logging and hydro projects, cutting too many trees for my liking, were ongoing so this particular Forest Service Road (FSR) had been put on the back burner for a while. Also, being January, I did not really expect that we would be able to to get very high in elevation, as deep snow would prevent us going any further.
But with this being one of the mildest January’s in recent years, we were able to get much further than expected. I was pleased with some new course changes that had been made on the road in general. One rock strewn, steep climb which was always nerve-wracking at the best of times, is now bypassed.
It was a good day condition-wise; a bad day footprint-wise! Not only were there no Sasquatch tracks found, but no tracks of any kind were found in some of the best conditions here in a long time! Deep snow, about 12 kilometers in, stopped us in our tracks.
I look forward to returning to this FSR in the near future, to find how far the new bypass will go before reconnecting to the old road. If it goes to where I think it does, then this will be a good place for some of our future trips and expeditions.
Thomas Steenburg
I was informed that an individual on another site (the BFF Forum) had posed a question to me: if I personally had any friends and colleagues who claim to have seen a Sasquatch, whom I believe?
I found the question myself and tried to answer on the BFF site, but found that my spell-checker no longer corrects things for me there. Having the spelling skills that a grade 5 student would laugh at, I decided to try and fix the problem before making any more posts on their website!
But as we were out and about in the Bush during one of the warmest January’s I can remember, it was decided to try and answer the question right then and there. So, here you go, Terry, I hope this answers your question!
A quick note: In hindsight, I noticed I did not mention the late, Bob Titmus in the video. I knew him for many years and as he claimed sightings on two different occasions, he then should also have been added to the list. Once again, I have to state that if the Sasquatch does indeed exist (something I do believe, by the way!) then these men saw one. If I am wrong, and the Sasquatch does not nor never did exist, then these men have had very good examples of mis-identification of common animals or humans.
Thomas Steenburg
Rene was Rene. That really, in a nutshell, was the only way to describe the man. We were good friends – I loved the guy. So, when I was asked about him during a recent outing, the memory came back of two trips with Rene, in the same general area that we were now standing. I was much younger then and at times my inexperience would show. Something Rene would never, and I mean NEVER, fail to point out!
Rest in peace, my friend – I miss you.
On my youtube site someone asked me if I had ever heard of any reports of Sasquatch observed in or around public garbage dumps? That got me thinking, as I have noticed a change in such reports since the 1980s.
I have spoken to witnesses who claimed to have seen a Sasquatch rummaging through human garbage but every story that I am aware of is now at least 30 years old. There are a few more recent ones where the subject was observed rummaging through people’s garbage cans but these too have been few and far between.
So I wondered, ‘Why have reports of this creature in garbage dumps stopped?’ The answer became clear, at least here in Western Canada (Alberta and BC).
In the early 1980s, various levels of government decided that the long standing practice of open pit dumps would end. The main reason for this decision at the time was the increasing number of what was officially known as ‘spoiled bears’. Bears that became so used to easy picking of human food in the dumps that such scavenging had become the norm.
A spoiled bear can quickly become an aggressive problem bear when that food source is cut off. This became a huge issue in 1980 when a large, problem Grizzly, which was a known garbage feeder, killed one man and seriously mauled another in Banff National Park. The National, and later the Provincial Parks, led the way in shutting down the open pit dumps – a rule communities soon followed suit.
There was a period of time for the bears to go though a sort of, ‘No easy pickings, withdraw’, but today nobody even remembers the outcry. Remember when suddenly one could just drive to the local dump and drop off a bag or two for free? Or going to the dump in the early hours of the morning to do some bear watching? This was the norm. So, of course, there were a few reports of other creatures seen in and about the dumps, too.
Today, the dumps are like little forts! High fences all around; steel containers; everything separated for recycling; or everything trucked in or out; staff there almost ’round the clock to keep an eye on things. And the biggest change of all: trash is now weighed and you have to pay to leave it there! No bears anymore – just ravens, crows and seagulls. At least that is the way of it here, where I live, in Mission, British Columbia.
So, to conclude, I feel even though there were a few reports in the past of Sasquatch in and around community open pit garbage dumps, that has indirectly become a thing of the past – like the dumps themselves, for the most part.
Thomas Steenburg