Pages

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Minnesota bigfoot picture

The image on the right is a trail camera shot apparently of a bigfoot that was taken in northern Minnesota.
There seems to be unanimous agreement by bigfooters that this is most likely not a bigfoot but someone in hairy looking suit of some kind who wandered by and set off the camera, intentionally or otherwise.
Well, I think they are wrong.
It is a fake alright. But it is a 'photoshopped' image and not a passerby. The color of the creature is too blue. The left leg is too long. But the main giveaway can be seen in the second image.

I have drawn a red arrow pointing toward a stem of grass or weed that originates on the far side of the figure.
This stem cuts in front of the figure's left leg, which is impossible.
The left leg is too long, the reason is probably to hide a poorly drawn foot or possibly a shoe (if the image was of a human in an ape suit) behind some foliage. The blueness of the figure was because it was taken from an image with a bluer tone and no color adjustments were made.

William Mayes

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Hominoid Captured Alive

There interesting story about a group of people that caught a wildman (Almasti) and put him in the trunk of their car. This was in Russia and was posted on alamas.ru. This story has been around for a while, it happened in 1989 I believe. For those who have not heard or read this story here is a link to it.
William Mayes

Monday, October 19, 2009

Patty's Cheeks



If you will look at the image on the left which is my rendering of one of the Patterson images, you can see that she has high cheek bones. Apes do not have cheek bones. Apes have their jaw muscles attached to a crest of bone along the top of the head. Humans have their jaw muscles attached to the temples. As a consequence, the bridge of bone which these muscles pass under is placed more forward in a human than an ape. This bridge is attached at the cheek bone. This causes the human cheek bones to stand out more. This indicates to me that the Patterson creature does not have a real sagittal crest and and is closely related to humanity.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

There's Something About A Bigfoot

It seems strange to me that so many people seem to be overcome with fear when they encounter a Bigfoot. It doesn't happen to everyone, of course, but it happens often enough that I think that it should be noted. Bigfoot is a huge, muscular, and hairy. I don't think that his size has much to do with it, because people who have not even sighted the creature are affected. I know a fellow that was squirrel hunting who was being paced by something on two feet. He was a very experienced hunter and an intelligent man who was very savvy about such things. He said it would walk when he walked and stopped when he stopped. He never saw the creature but he said that every hair on his body was sticking straight up, and all he wanted to do was get back to his truck as fast as he could. His dog looked like he felt the same way. The latest report on bfro is an example of how bigfoot will inspire fear.
These humanoids have been around for a long time. It is probable that humans and bigfeet have interacted long enough that each has acquired innate or instinctive response to other's presence. Looking at some of the cave drawings and other representations of these creatures, you can see that humans have often considered it great sport to kill them or take advantage of them in some way and Bigfoot often reciprocated the feelings. If nature says "be afraid" then you should listen. Hopefully it is not something that can't be overcome. Perhaps that's why they are so shy.
At Bigfoot Encounters Bobby Short has written an interesting article on human giants and their comparison to Bigfeet. She also has a revelatory article by Peter Byrne about some of the "Icons" of Bigfoot research. And here are a couple of articles on Ardipithecus at Science Daily. (1), (2). Ardipithecus is not bigfoot. The first article has some nice drawings of this creature. It looks like some kind of Gibbon to me.
William Mayes

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Corrections

In a recent post I made an erroneous statement concerning a report on Alabama Bigfoot. I had assumed that perhaps the report was untrue because it was removed. Mr. Branco(who does not run alabamabigfoot as I erroneously stated) assures me that "Rare Interactions" has been removed due to security risks to the witness and his family. He also states "Since that report was posted, its validity has been confirmed time and time again by my own observations and by experiences of many local residents".
I've removed the post since the link is no longer valid.
William Mayes

Monday, September 7, 2009

Rasa, The Old Man

The narrator the first cd of Bigfoot Sounds mentions that a small voice piped up and was addressed roughly by the old man. It seems to be asking a question, but is very indistinct and I can make nothing of it.
There was another incident where a small voice piped up but was answered more gently by the old man. It is a little clearer and what it says is very interesting. This is on the second cd on track 9 at about 2 minutes and 56 seconds.
From what I can make out, The voice says:"Rasa?" Slight pause."Is a tokarite?"
The old man replies:"On wun siye."
After a pause, the small voice says:"By By."

These, of course, are just representations of my impressions of these sounds and there is no way to know what they mean. But it seems to me that when the first voice called out to the old man he used his name (the old man's). "Rasa" then is probably the Old Man's name or possibly a term of respect such as "Grandfather" or "Chief". I believe it is most likely his name.
In an interaction between the old man and the female I noticed the sound "wooten" Used several times and "ooten" used once. They sound as if the were being used as suffix or modifier at the end of an expression.
I also wonder if "wooten" has any relation to "woota wada" which one of the callers used to initiate his calls to the men at the beginning of the session. He spoke it, to my mind, as if he were using a formal greeting.
There's a lot of stuff in these cds. I just wish there was more.
William Mayes

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Some Things I Need To Say

Human beings are verbal creatures. Our life revolves around the spoken word or its written representation. We learn to concentrate on the meaning of words. In doing so we tend to lose the ability to read the subtleties of the sounds we hear. The intentions of a person may not match the words he speaks. Animals that cannot speak are very aware of things like vocal intonation and body language.
But we also have this ability, we have just covered it up. If we hadn't had it as babies we could not have learned to talk.
We need to unconfuse ourselves and learn to use our inborn abilities for reading body language, facial expressions and vocal intonations.
The best way of practicing this is to be in the company of someone who does not speak your language.
Such is the case with the bigfoot recordings, except we can't see them, we only have the vocal intonations.
There are creatures running around naked in the wilderness areas of the Amazon. But because they are of normal size and are not hair covered, we have no trouble calling them human beings. They have a language and they speak. They are barbaric, ignorant and superstitous. This is the normal state of humanity.
The giant hairy people that are called bigfoot are human beings; they have a language. They are no doubt barbaric, ignorant and superstitious. They are not apes and they are not magical creatures. They don't read minds or disappear in mid air. They are flesh and blood just like we are.
A researcher trying to get at the truth is besieged from all sides. On one side are the mythologizers who try to portray bigfoot as some kind of magical monster ape with paranormal powers. This attitude is made worse by the number of people who want to profit by taking advantage of people gullible enough to believe their horse shit.Their key phrase is "people love a mystery". People are curious and people want to know the truth, but the people who love mystery are those who sell fiction.
On the other side are the psychologizers, who see the mythologizers as the essense of the bigfoot community. Their key phrase is "There is a need to believe in giant humanoid creatures", or some variation, implying that it's all in our heads.
Scientists are in denial mainly for their fear of losing face by investigating a true natural mystery that might question the theories of important theorists high in the social order.
I am not a mythologizer. It may seem that I am but what I am trying to do is listen to these sounds as if they were made by human beings.The inferences and conclusions I make are highly tentative and are subject to revisement. Nevertheless I believe some such approach is needed to establish the fact that these are indeed human beings and not animals.
I said in the last post that I would explain why this bigfoot language seems to resemble (in some respects) Old Saxon. In the incident with the old man and the female when the old man initiates the conversation by saying what I thought sounded like "kahunny?"which I said sounds like the front end of this word was missing, I believe he is actually saying"kann e,te?". Kann is an Old English(Old Saxon) word for think. He is possibly saying"What think you of this?"
Please stick with me. I may be slow, but There is more, lots more. Next time.
William Mayes

Friday, August 28, 2009

More Bigfoot Talk

There are people who believe these creatures aren't actually talking as humans would do but are just making animal sounds that sound like speech, but are nothing but emotional responses. But these vocalizations have been studied by linguists who have concluded that they are indeed some form of speech. These creatures obviously take turns vocalizing just as we humans do in our conversation. The response to a vocalization does not always match the instigating vocalization.
This could only be because the response is based on the perceived meaning of the vocalization and not its emotional tone.

Track 2 of the first cd is a recording of "the old man" and a female( presumably "the old woman").I've tried to approximate the sounds as best as I could but different interpretations are possible.
The old man makes an initial vocalization that sounds like "kahunny" and she replies in a very gentle tone "um Hmm?" a slight pause and then she says in the same gentle tone what sounds like "nelson". In spite of her dulcet tones the old man responds in a sarcastic manner. "I noafhoom WHHA?"obviously responding to the meaning of"nelson" and not to her gentle voice. She then goes into explanatory mode with a slightly higher pitch and slighter louder and quicker voice, just as anyone would if they had said some thing unusual that needed clarification.

This is speech. It may be a very simple language that they are using, but it is speech nevertheless.

This particular interchange is very significant and getting a recording of it was a lucky break. I believe that the subject of the conversation was the men in the camp, and the female changed the old man's attitude toward these intruders. I think the front end of this conversation may have been cut off since the old man usually begins an utterance with "ah", "aw", or "Wa" if he is speaking loudly. This is probably similar to how people often(more than they realize) begin an utterance with "uh".

It is hard enough to try to convince science that a hairy manlike bipedal ape is walking the wilderness areas of North America, but to then come along and say that maybe they can talk and maybe they aren't animals after all bothers even some die-hard bigfooters.
I have identified several repeated sounds that seem to have the character of words and have been able to assign a tentative meaning to them.
one is "blag" or "blagt" which seems to me to mean "talk". It is used several times in interchanges between the creatures and the men. One time when one of the creatures made a somewhat mocking response to the men, the old man spoke up saying " wa hinden froido to blag". My guess is that he is telling the others to speak in a more friendly manner. In an exchange where one of the men talks and whistles to the old man, the old man responds "aw blagobooma". May be he is saying "aw, talk sense".
Another word is "why". I've spelled it exactly the same as the english word "why" because amazingly enough, it seems to be used in the same context and may mean the same thing. The vocalizations have to my ear a distinct germanic sound to it. This might be because of its gutteral quality. But a close examination of some of the word sounds used leads me to believe that it actually does have affinities to an ancient germanic language. In the next installment I will try to explain why I think this language may have a relation to Old Saxon.

William Mayes

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

bigfoot talk

I've listened to an awful lot of alleged bigfoot sounds over the last year or two, mostly screams and whoops. Some sound like wolves or dogs. I lived very close to a pack of red wolves one time. The leader, a female would would start rousting them out about three a m and you never heard so much complaining in all your life. They would would whine and wail awhile then they would get up and leave, probably to check out the garbage cans in a nearby housing area. Some of the recordings i've heard sound just like those wolves.
I believe that a some of these recordings are misidentifications of other animals and birds and some may be outright fakes, but not all. It's really hard to know for sure.
One set of recordings that I believe are real are the bigfoot sounds of Al Berry and Ron Morehead. I purchased their cds and have studied them intently. If they are fake then these guys have created a masterpiece. If they are real, and I believe that they are, then bigfoot can talk. No one could listen to these vocal interactions and not realize this. If you haven't heard these recordings then you should get these cds. They will boggle your mind. ( A boggle or bogle was probably a bigfoot type creature that has been mythologized.Similar to boggards ,boogers and bucas).
Anyway, I've analyzed these sounds and I think I can tell what language group these conversations belong to. It's not what you think. I also have determined possibly the meaning of one or two of their phrases. I have also determined that these creatures are also superstitious.
This may sound extreme but I will try to explain my analysis starting hopefully, tomorrow. Get a copy of these recordings and follow along with me. I am an old man and I tire easily. But hopefully I will be back tomorrow to enlighten you. I have much more to say than I have time for.
William Mayes

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Bauman Incident Revisited

I was re-reading an account of the Bauman story the other day and I realized that there is another interpretation of the events in the story.
The Bauman story is an account told by Theodore Roosevelt in his book 'The Wilderness Hunter' of an alleged incident told by an old trapper named Bauman who had an encounter with a creature that apparently is the same as the one we now call Bigfoot. The full story is at Bigfoot Encounters here.
At the beginning it tells of finding a dead hunter who was partially eaten. There were large humanlike footprints found by the body. The obvious conclusion was that the creature that left the footprints was the one who had killed the hunter.
At the end of the story, Bauman returned to camp to find his partner dead.

Here is the ending as Roosevelt told it:

"There was nothing to break the gloomy stillness which, when there is no breeze, always broods over these somber primeval forests. At last he came to the edge of the little glade where the camp lay, and shouted as he approached it, but got no answer. The camp fire had gone out, though the thin blue smoke was still curling upwards.

Near it lay the packs wrapped and arranged. At first Bauman could see nobody; nor did he receive an answer to his call. Stepping forward he again shouted, and as he did so his eye fell on the body of his friend, stretched beside the trunk of a great fallen spruce. Rushing towards it the horrified trapper found that the body was still warm, but that the neck was broken, while there were four great fang marks in the throat.

The footprints of the unknown beast-creature, printed deep in the soft soil, told the whole story. The unfortunate man, having finished his packing, had sat down on the spruce log with his face to the fire, and his back to the dense woods, to wait for his companion.


While thus waiting, his monstrous assailant, which must have been lurking in the woods, waiting for a chance to catch one of the adventurers unprepared, came silently up from behind, walking with long noiseless steps and seemingly still on two legs. Evidently unheard, it reached the man, and broke his neck by wrenching his head back with its fore paws, while it buried its teeth in his throat.

It had not eaten the body, but apparently had romped and gamboled around it in uncouth, ferocious glee, occasionally rolling over and over it; and had then fled back into the soundless depths of the woods.

Bauman, utterly unnerved, and believing that the creature with which he had to deal was something either half human or half devil, some great goblin-beast, abandoned everything but his rifle and struck off at speed down the pass, not halting until he reached the beaver meadows where the hobbled ponies were still grazing. Mounting, he rode onwards through the night, until beyond reach of pursuit. . . . ."

It has been reported many times by eye witnesses that bigfoot has humanlike teeth. If Bauman's partner had fang marks on his neck then they weren't caused by a Bigfoot.
Here's what I think happened. A cougar, bear, or wolf attacked the man and the bigfoot became involved. Instead of romping and rolling with glee the bigfoot was fighting the animal that had attacked the man.

I would like to say that the tracks beside the hunter's body (at the beginning of the story) does not necessarily mean that the bigfoot was the one that killed him, only that the creature was there. He may have been just examining the body.

Knowing the danger the men were in bigfoot tried to run them off. When the predator attacked Bauman's Partner, bigfoot stepped in and fought the animal. Unfortunately, it was too late.

Could this have been the way it really was? You be the judge.

William Mayes

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Seeing Bigfoot

Here is an interesting story of a lady who saw a bigfoot at close range while camping out in Colorado. The picture is loosely based on this incident.

A Close Encounter.

The other day there was a report in the news about a lady in Fairfield, Connecticut who claimed she almost ran into an 8 foot tall Bigfoot in the middle of Unquowa Rd. She reported it to police and they quickly found a teenager (so they say) who had been standing at the intersection of Unquowa Rd and Sturgis Rd dressed in a gorilla suit, waving at passing motorists while his friends watched.
If the woman was honestly mistaken as it appears to be, then there is no reason to call it a hoax as Cryptomundo did.
But I am not so sure she was mistaken. The initial report does not state that she saw it at the Sturgis Rd intersection and since she came close enough to the creature as to almost hit it, I'm sure she could tell how large it was. It may not have been the teenager she saw. In fact, the story of the teenager could have been made up for all we know. Since the kid was only 16 years old and had not broken any laws, there would be no official record that would identify him.

My favorite Bigfoot scientist: Wolf Henner Fahrenbach


A Scientist Studies Bigfoot

Here are some of his Bigfoot Articles. Here and here.
If you don't think he is a real scientist, check this out.
Have a happy Independence Day.

William Mayes

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Almasty Research Videos

I found some great videos on You-tube about expeditions in the Caucasus in Russia searching for Almasty. Almas is singular and Almasty is plural (I think). Unfortunately, it is in French and I couldn't understand a word of it. Nevertheless it is worth watching even if you don't understand the language. The people are very expressive in describing their encounters. The scenery is great and there are tracks every where as well a drawings by a very good artist. The visuals are fantastic.It is called "Amasty. Yeti du Caucases". A little background can be had at The German Study Group of Sub-Human Primates so you won't be completely lost. It is in English.
Also a little background on Marie-Jean Koffman (Russia's Almasty Lady) can be found Here and Here.
Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3

William Mayes

Monday, June 29, 2009

High vs Low Tech

I have a digital camera right in front of me. If a Bigfoot walked in front of me, by the time I powered it up and got it set for the lighting, pressed the button (after which there is a slight delay) I would be very lucky to get small blob in the distance. Most likely I would get nothing.
Roger Patterson had a 16 mm movie camera in his saddle bag, wound up and ready to go. He had the presence of mind to grab it when his horse reared and threw him off. He hit the ground running taking pictures as he went. If it had been a digital camera, he would never have gotten the great shot of a bigfoot turning to look directly at him.
My advice to bigfoot hunters: get a good film camera. High tech ain't all it's cracked up to be and is the number one reason we don't have any good photos of Sasquatch.
William Mayes

Sunday, June 28, 2009

About the Patterson-Gimlin film

There were two witnesses to the filming of the Patterson-Gimlin film: Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Roger Patterson is dead. He died from leukemia. He went to his death claiming that his film was real. He spent his hard earned money trying to get science to accept the validity of his film. This was money he could have used for treatments that might have prolonged his life. He would not have done that if the film were a hoax.
Bob Gimlin is still alive. He is a deeply religious man who believes that lying is a sin. He will tell you that the creature is real and there is no way it could have been falsified. I believe him. I have seen the film and I know it must be real.
The trouble with people who think that it was a hoax is that they just do not want to bother checking the facts. There have been a lot of people claiming to prove that the film was a hoax, but they have always failed.
I'm an old man, I've seen a lot of movies with ape-suits in them, from the original 'King Kong' to John Chambers' ape-suits in 'Planet of the Apes'. I have never seen one that would really look real outside of the theater.
I realize there are some people that can't seem to tell the difference between a real ape and an ape suit. I was at a circus one day when what looked like an ape got loose in the stands. I could see immediately that it was a man in an ape-suit. Yet hundreds of people jumped up from their seats and began running away. It looked like there was going to be a stampede. Then the man took off his head-piece and the crowd quietened down and returned to their seats. I was amazed that so many people could be fooled so easily.
So it is with the Patterson creature. Some people can tell that it is real and some people can't.
I realize that many, if not most, people are skeptical of Bigfoot and harbor the belief that Bigfooters are silly and gullible people. Or hoaxers. Well, there is no doubt that some are. But not all.
If you have doubts about the Patterson film being real, I have compiled a list of links, Which may convince you of its veracity. Please check them out, You may be surprised at what you will learn.


'Hasn't this all been shown to be a hoax?'
Bill Miller
Hollywood
Chambers
Patterson Film
History of the Patterson-Gimlin Film

William Mayes

Saturday, June 27, 2009

A new Interpretation Of The Patterson Images



I mentioned in my previous post that we need to re-evaluate the Patterson images in light of the new revelations concerning the appearance of Bigfoot.
Trying to enhance these images only enhances the errors. There is only one tool that can improve these images. The human mind.
What we need is a bright, analytical mind with good physical intuition and artistic talent. By examining the background clutter, he could compensate for the distortions caused by "bleed over"(see the previous post for a definition), moderate the extreme contrast, and add detail that is hinted at in the unrefined image. Unfortunately, Leonardo Da Vinci is no longer with us.
So, the task devolves upon my humble and narrow (metaphorically speaking) shoulders.
And I have risen to the task as the image above shows.
In the upper left hand corner is a cut-out from a frame of the Patterson film to be used for comparison. Note that the so-called "saggital crest" has disappeared in the main image. It and the "horns" on the side of the head are nothing but artifacts produced by distortions caused by the background. I have lightened the cheeks and since there were hints of wrinkles in the original image, I have concluded that the hair there could not be too thick.The forehead is a matter of conjecture, but I went with the flow and decided that the lightness could be the skin showing through.
What think ye of my Masterpiece?
William Mayes

Friday, June 26, 2009

New Insights

David Paulides new book Tribal Bigfoot has some interesting insights concerning bigfoot and the relationship that Native Americans have to these creatures. I highly recommend this book. Check out North American Bigfoot's site for an excellent review by Bobbie Short, who runs Bigfoot Encounters. Harvey Pratt has used his skills as a forensic artist to extract the images of Bigfoot from the descriptions of eye witnesses, mostly Native Americans and the result is perhaps a little surprising to the exponents of the Ape Hypothesis. It seems that most Bigfoot are not as hairy as the Patterson figure was supposed to be, at least around the facial area. As Paulides says, if these people were just inventing these sightings they would most likely try to describe a creature that fits the stereotype. The main stereotype is based on the images in the Patterson film. We have this dark and supposedly hairy creature walking across the scenery. She turns and and looks at Patterson momentarily and then continues on her way. It has always been assumed that this darkness represented hairiness. I don't think it does. I think it is time to reconsider this image in light of these findings.
The film was taken against against a backdrop brightly illuminated by the afternoon sun. The film has apparently been developed to bring this background out clearly, but this leaves the dark figure of the creature underexposed. On top of that, the figure is so small relative to the scene, it is necessary to enlarge the image to a considerable degree. Unfortunately, this degree of enlargement exposes certain anomalies in the photographic and development process. The graininess of the film is obvious. There is also something I call "bleedover". I am not a film expert , so I don't know the technical name for it, I think it is caused by electron flow, but I may be wrong on that. But I do know what it does. It causes dark objects to darken objects near it and light objects to lighten objects. This causes objects(light or dark objects on the film) to seem to move or expand toward each other. This is only noticeable at very great enlargements of a film image, such as the popular images from the patterson film.
To top it all, someone has tampered slightly with the popular frame 352 and it is not a true representation of the original image. I show this clearly in my web album Meet Bigfoot, Which has a link in my last post.
Patty(the popular name of the Patterson figure), is not as hairy as some think, in my opinion.
William Mayes

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Tribal Bigfoot

I received my copy of Tribal Bigfoot yesterday and I have gotten about on third of the way through it. I skipped ahead to see Harvey pratt's eyewitness drawings and they are fantastic.
Here is something to occupy your mind while I read the book. Click on the image.

Meet Bigfoot
William Mayes

Monday, June 22, 2009

The Black Death


In the middle of the fourteenth century the Black Plague decimated the populations of Europe. It is estimated that it reduced the population of Europe by one third or more.
I believe that the Hairy forest people were hit much harder than the human population since the plague was carried by fleas and presumably the hairy forest people had fleas. The destruction was close to 100%. Unfortunately, no one was present to record this event for posterity.
The map shows the progress of the plague from 1347 to after 1351.
Notice the large green area on the map in eastern Europe. This is an area that had only minor outbreaks. It is also an area where there are still reports of hairy forest people, the Almas. In the rest of Europe, stories of encounters with these creatures ceased, and eventually people began to lose their belief in them. The ancient folk tales of encounters with these beings degenerated into amusing stories and fables.
If this event had never happened then knowledge of these creatures would be common and all the fairy tales made up by story tellers would probably not exist and Bigfoot would not be called a myth.
William Mayes

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Happy summer soltice

Partyers stayed up all night last night at Stonehenge to welcome the arrival of the first day of summer.
No one knows Who built Stonehenge or Why. Some believe that it was constructed by followers of a pre-Christian religion called Druidism. But scientists have established that the construction is at least 12,000 years old and predates the Druids. Since the largest stones are lined up to face the direction of the rising sun on the first day of summer, many believe that the construction represents some kind of calendar. It is also believed to be a burial ground since a number of graves have been found on the sight.
A lot of ancient constructions are aligned with the moon or sun.I would just like to mention that in the days before electric or gas lighting, the main illumination was the sun and people built their houses to take advantage of it.
Some believe that giants erected the colossal stones.I rather doubt it.
I believe that giants existed at the time of the construction of Stonehenge, though, because they exist right now. They are the same creatures we know as Bigfoot or Sasquatch.
At one time, it was common knowledge that in the forests and mountains away from human habitations dwelt strange humanlike creatures both large and small. But something happened to them and they went away.
When they disappeared, the memory of them lingered and was distorted into the myths that we now know.
Tomorrow I will explain the tragic event that occurred that caused the disappearance of the Forest Peoples of Europe. So hang in there with me and you will be enlightened.
William Mayes

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Drink This


Drink this and your eyes will be opened

Welcome

Welcome to the hairygiants blog. This first post is mainly description of my intentions.
Maybe you are not used to the term Hairy Giants. It is a term I use for the creatures known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot. I call them this because I believe that it is more descriptive than Bigfoot and is less whimsical.
I am a true believer, which doesn't mean I have a religious or superstitious faith in these creatures, only that I am convinced at this time that the evidence is real. I realize that most scientists believe that that Bigfoot is a myth. Their belief has no more grounds than mine. In fact, I think it has less, since they do not examine the evidence because they believe it is not worth their effort.
There is a great deal of literature on these creatures and a lot of web sites devoted to some aspect (usually research) of Bigfootery. I have read some of the books and keep track of the main websites.
I will be discussing some of these books and websites from time to time and will post links to some of them.
One book I will probably be discussing will be Tribal Bigfoot by David Paulides. It is just out and I haven't received my copy yet, but I am very much interested in the drawings done by Harvey Pratt, who is a forensic artist. A forensic artist is a person who draws a picture of a criminal or missing person from a witness's verbal description. That is what Harvey has done with witnesses of bigfoot sightings. Paulides previous book, The Hoopa Project had some surprising drawings (to some people) of these creatures.
Other things I will have a lot of is drawings by my favorite artist: me.
Yes, I like to draw and I like to draw the Hairy Giants.
William Mayes

About Me

My photo
I've lived in the woods and came to know and understand the creatures that inhabit it. I have compassion for all God's creatures, most especially the creature known whimsically as "bigfoot", since he is more like us than any other. I am now an old man and unable to run around in the woods. If I were able I would be out there right now trying to prove his existence. I started this blog to try to express some of the ideas and speculations I have had on bigfoot. I am not into bigfoot social events. I don't gossip about other bloggers. I try to keep myself informed of events. My ideas and opinions are my own and I make no apology for them. They are not written in stone and I welcome any and all civil comments. I am looking for the truth, not fame.

Followers