Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
nl28final2

nl28final2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 170 |Likes:
Published by Henry May

More info:

Published by: Henry May on Jul 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
APRIL 1
ST
IS NOTORIOUS
in the world of sasquatch/bigfoot studies. I shudder when I see the dateon any old newspaper articles. However, believe me, it is just a date where this newsletter isconcerned.
THIS ARTWORK
of a Neanderthal man intrigued mesomewhat. I don’t think there is any relationship withthe sasquatch, but most certainly with the Russiansnowman or almasty (which I think may also be inNorth America). Indeed, it has been theorized thatsuch are relict Neanderthals. It is very strange thatthey all disappeared, and would you believe that onehighly unlikely theory on the reason here is that theirbrains (heads) continued to enlarge and eventuallybecame too big for the female birth canal. Incidentally,by my calculation, the size of a sasquatch’s head (i.e.,Patty) is about one-sixth of its height; while withhumans it is one-eighth (see page 99,
Meet the Sasquatch 
).
ROGER KNIGHTS
has asked meto be a little more explicit on thepath the creature took in relationto the elevated photograph of thefilm site. Shown here is what Ibelieve to be fairly close, startingat frame 352 (heading East). Ineffect, the creature did head intothe forest on its left hand side.The reason the film site got“wiped out” is that at some pointin time (likely several times) after1972, torrential rains turned BluffCreek into a raging torrent, and itcould not negotiate the bend shown. It could not go straight ahead because it was blocked by amountain. There was nowhere else to go but the film site. For certain, judging by the soil rocks and soforth, the creek had done the same thing in the past, and was likely responsible for the little clearingin the first place. This time, however, it was much stronger and left a great gorge, well over two-thirdsinto the site. However, standing in the gorge on a sunny autumn day gives one the feeling that it hasalways been there. I would say the entire region, referred to as the “primitive area,” is in a state ofconstant change, but few, if any, people really notice because so few go into the area.(More on this subject is available on my blog under
Film Site Album
 
(link provided).
 
Note: My diagram is only
generally 
the same as the diagram Bob Titmus made as seen on page 42 of
Meet the Sasquatch.
Bob’s drawing was not intended to be a scale diagram, so it is difficult to reconcile with an actual photograph.Also, please note that the photograph covers just a portion of the area Bob shows.
An early 20 
th 
century view of how Neanderthal man may have looked.
 
THE MURPHY FILE NEWSLETTER #28April 1, 2007
©C. L. Murphy - cmurphy101@shaw.ca
PLEASE EMAIL ME IF YOU WISH TO BE ADDED TO OR REMOVED FROM MY EMAIL LIST
.
BLUFFCREEK
EAST
 
 
ABOUT TEN YEARS
 
AGO
René Dahinden gave methis photo (7”x 9.25”) that shows Sheriff Bill Closnerholding a cast he made of footprints found inSkamania County, Washington in March 1969. At thetime, it was reported that the cast was 22 inches long.René showed this in his books (first and later edition),and I show the same in
Meet the Sasquatch 
, p, 175.On the back of the photo, René shows a notation thatthe cast was actually only 15.5 inches long. Although Iwas aware of this when I wrote
Meet the Sasquatch 
,the newspaper reports stated the cast was 22 inches,so I decided to leave the original figure. Now, lo andbehold, Dr. Meldrum has told me that Closner provided a copy of this cast to Dr. Grover Krantz, andthe cast is 15.5 inches long. Please put a little note next to the photo in
Meet the Sasquatch.
SHOWN HERE, AT LONG LAST,
is a photo of John W.Burns, the teacher at the Chehalis Indian Reservation,British Columbia, who developed the word “sasquatch,”which is now the Canadian word for creature. Burns startedworking there in 1925 and became acquainted with nativeencounters with the creature. Here is what he wroteregarding the name: “The older Indians called the tribe‘Saskehavis,’ literally, ‘wild men.’ I named them “Sasquatch,”which can be translated freely into English as, “hairy giants.”(See page 31 of
Meet the Sasquatch 
for the full article onBurns.)One of the sasquatch encoun-ters Burns recorded was theabduction of 16-year-oldSerephine Long in about 1890.He offered the artwork shownhere to illustrate the story. Itappears the work was createdunder his direction.This is Serephine Long in a photo that I believewas taken in 1954. I will guess that she is about80 years old. This would put her birth date at1874. She probably told her story to Burns in the1930s, making her in her 50s at the time.All of these photos were published in theCanadian edition of
Liberty 
magazine, December1954. All I have is a photocopy of the article thatwas given to John Fuhrmann. I am trying toobtain (purchase) a copy of the actual magazine.If anyone has any leads in this regard please contact me.
 
DAVID CUSICK
(died c.1840), author of
Sketches of Ancient History of the Six Nations 
(1828), createdthis engraving of “Stonish Giants” chasing nativepeople. The giants, it is said, started to overrun thecountry in about 242 AD. We are told they were soravenous that they “devoured the people of almostevery town in the country.” With the help of the“Holder of the Heavens,” the Giants were defeatedand forced to “seek asylum in the regions of thenorth.” I really don’t think there were any “towns”around at that time, but there were certainlysettlements.
THE FOOTPRINTS FOUND
last October in the Plumas NationalForest, California, by Chuck and Michelle Padigo, were located inthe area seen here. The whole region is a very heavily forestedpark preserve, so most certainly there could be sasquatch livingin there. Unfortunately, it’s a case of, “Lord, we don’t needanother footprint.” We are also at the same point with regard tosightings. We are not there yet with regard to photographs orvideos–although the hoaxed material always counts for twostrikes against anyone who presents images.
MOST CERTAINLY,
when we read about new discoveries in far-away places with strange-soundingnames, we marvel at the intrepid scientists who risked life and limb so that we can enjoy readingabout their adventures in
National Geographic 
or some other prestigious scientific publication.However, I am pleased to see that a few of our treasured professionals do appear to stick aroundhome, although not many wander very far into the “badlands.” One, nevertheless, did kick a rock, andgot to wondering about something that intrigued me many, many years ago.If you get out into the garden now and then and shift things around, you have undoubtedly seenlots of “wood bugs.” They always reminded me of little armadillos – somehow they’re not quite thesame as the other “bugs.” Well, guess what? Someone has just discovered that they are not bugs,they’re
isopods 
 –a kind of crustacean (which has crabs and lobsters in its ranks). The newspaperreport that appeared in the
Vancouver Sun 
, March 10, 2007, is provided below in case you like thissort of thing.
PLEASE NOTE THIS UPCOMING MAJOR BigfootConference
 
in Ohio
. Don Keating is the organizer, and allthe necessary information on the event can be found on hiswebsite >http://www.angelfire.com/oh/ohiobigfoot/abc.html<
(Link Provided)
Don has some great speakers lined up, including Tony Healyfrom Australia, who will later be visiting me in BritishColumbia.A while back, I mentioned that these events are very friendly,and I encouraged you to attend them. If you live in Ohio orplan on being in that great state during May, then I stronglyrecommend you take in this conference.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->