Pages

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

2 comments:

  1. That sounds about right. Although these creatures seem absolutely capable of tearing men limb from limb, they choose not to. So this story makes no sense in it's assumptions that Sasquatch killed this man. There aren't any other stories of them doing this sort of thing. They yell and scream and throw things, and generally make humans feel unwelcome (when they are not).

    I am heading out to a state park where there ARE squatches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting interpretation and certianly plausible if the trapper's account is accurate. However there is some precedence to the existence of aggresive cannibalistic anthropoids. In 1840's the famous wild life painter Paul Kane wrote that while painting around Mount St. Helens he would often have local Indians guide him into some of the more isolated regions of the mountain. But when it came to exploring the giant crater along the Southern ridge the Indians balked.

      They told Kane that a race of hairy giants inhabited that area. These giants were extremely aggressive and often raided their camps and stole their women. Kane went on to same that these being had penchant for human flesh. The Indians of that region called them Skoocooms for fierce and fast.

      Delete

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