The word "Sasquatch" often conjures thoughts of an aggressive monster, most people, of which, do not believe is real. I'm here to tell you that they "ARE" real, and "ARE" a living model for science evasion. This animal has been historically reported and witnessed in every State and Canadian Province since the time Euro-man arrived on the North American continent, and well before by Native Americans. Most of the descriptions are very similar, as well as the reported behavior for these animals. They are not ghosts, goblins, or figments of the drunk imagination. They leave behind compelling evidence for their existence, and much of the evidence cannot be faked.
On October 20th, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were looking for these animals in the Bluff Creek Riverbed in Northern California on horseback. Although their intent was to gather footage of the Sasquatch habitat (attempting to show film producers a merited effort), they really did not expect to actually see one. Suddenly the horses reared, bucking Patterson off, and he was able to grab the 16mm camera from the saddle bag just in time. Gimlin held his Horse firm, and watched in awe as the sequence unfolded. Patterson thought that the Horse reared because of a Cougar or Bear, and wanted to film it. They were both confronted with a large, dark, hair-covered body in the riverbed. With only a little more than a minutes time left of film, Patterson grabbed the camera, and as he did, the animal stood up, and began to walk away. Patterson gained his feet and started chasing the animal, while Gimlin later reflected a major concern for Patterson's safety, although too shocked to make any comment. Patterson ran and then shot what has become the most compelling film evidence ever gathered of a live Sasquatch, walking away from him. The film is shaky in the beginning, but becomes more stable toward the end where the animal can be clearly seen and identified.
Since that day the film has been scientifically analysed by several experts, including those residing in Russia, and most have found that the film obviously shows that the animal is not a man in a suit. They have studied each frame individually and found that there is no zipper, and the "suit" would have been impossible to create in 1967. They have actually seen muscle movement in each frame ... another reason to note that the animal is real. Suits do not show muscle movement. In addition, the walk of the animal is totally unlike a human gait. Estimates based on intense study of each frame show the animal was about 7 feet and 1 inch tall. My personal estimate, based on study at Rene Dahinden's residence in 1980, indicated 6 feet and 11 inches tall. My estimates did not compensate for the bent-over stride, and it may be that this animal would measure over 7 feet and 5 inches if standing totally erect. The weight estimates from the experts indicate from 800 to 1,000 pounds.
I will add here that I was allowed to view and examine, frame by frame, the Patterson Film in September, 1980 by the late Rene Dahinden. Rene owned all rights to the film, although some were always considered "Public Domain". I stayed with Rene for three days, and he showed me most likely more than he ever showed anyone else after that day. I saw so many aspects of the Patterson Film that I believe very few people have ever seen since. I wish the world could see what I saw, including the plaster casts he made only a day after the film, and the comparison of those feet to what is shown in the film.
Bigfoot — From a Physics Point of View
Abstract
Some of the most interesting features of this mystery called Bigfoot revolve around the reputed size, agility and strength of these rather ubiquitous creatures. Much has been written on these subjects by a wide variety of investigators and the famous Patterson film confirms (to believers, including this author) the distinctly large size of at least one specimen. Also, circumstantial (i.e., sighting) evidence abounds as to the supposed running speed and agility of these bipeds. This paper will attempt to produce estimates of Bigfoot weight, circumferences, speed, strength and agility based upon simple mathematical and biomechanical concepts (with procedures not previously documented by other investigators). Of course, some "reasonable" assumptions have to be made throughout this discussion; but after all, we don't have one of these remarkable mammals to test. Finally, this essay will take a look at the probability of the existence of such unparalleled creatures based upon an uncomplicated, statistical methodology.
Weight Estimates
Weight estimates by witnesses vary considerably. It is certainly not an easy task to estimate something that is well outside of the normal human weight range. The difficulty is surely compounded by the stunning and/or frightening realization of what the witness is viewing. Even the estimates made of Patty's weight have ranged from the sublime (300 lbs.) to the ridiculous (2,000 lbs.). However, a method will be described that produces quite acceptable estimates by scaling a baseline value to whatever height desired.
The baseline utilized by this author is that of a 6' tall mountain gorilla, with adjustments made due to the gorilla's very short legs and long torso. The recorded 450 lb. weight of captive gorillas would be reduced quite considerably if the leg and torso lengths were proportioned as with a human (or Bigfoot). Otherwise, the short neck, barrel chest and long thick arms of a gorilla correspond very closely with many eyewitness descriptions of a Bigfoot. Thus, for the purpose of establishing a baseline, this author is presuming the weight of a 6' tall Bigfoot at 300 lbs. Note that this value is on the very high side of human ranges, yet certainly reasonable considering the reputed thick structure, high shoulders and long arms of a Sasquatch.
At this point, it is possible to scale weight to any height, assuming the relative structural build stays constant. The relation that is used to define weight, W, versus height, H, is,
(1)
To maintain the constant build requirement, any percentage increase in height is accompanied by the same percentage increase in all circumferential measurements. However, since the cross-section area of any body segment increases with the square of the circumference (or radial dimensions, R), the equation above was basically derived from the relationship,
(2)
This relation is valid for practically any cross-section shape, i.e., rectangular, elliptical, circular, etc. It is now possible to tabulate estimates of Bigfoot weight using the presumed 6' tall/300 lb. baseline. Table 1 below uses Equation (1) to give those estimates, along with two other related columns. For referral purposes, the first column uses a baseline of 6' and 200 lbs. for a fairly "robust" human male and employs the same equation from above to predict human weights versus height.
The third column of Table 1 uses another baseline reference. One of the more interesting stories of Bigfoot lore concerns the supposed (but very well documented) capture of a young Bigfoot by a train crew in B.C over 115 years ago. This creature, named Jacko by the locals, was reported to be 4' 7" tall and 127 lbs. These measurements are set as the baseline for the last column's tabulations and can be compared with the results of the second column. Note that the baseline measurements used for scaling in each column are emphasized in the table. The 7' 3" height is included in the computations since that is the most recent estimate of height for Patty.
Table 1
Extrapolated Weight Estimates
Male
Human Adult
Bigfoot Jacko
(4' 7", 127 lbs.)
5' 6" 154 lbs. -- 219 lbs.
6' 0" 200 lbs. 300 lbs. 285 lbs.
6' 6" 254 lbs. 381 lbs. 362 lbs.
7' 0" 317 lbs. 476 lbs. 452 lbs.
7' 3" (Patty?) 352 lbs. 529 lbs. 502 lbs.
7' 6" -- 586 lbs. 556 lbs.
8' 0" -- 711 lbs. 675 lbs.
9' 0" -- 1012 lbs. 961 lbs.
Circumferential Estimates
A similar, but slightly more complicated scaling method is presented to predict realistic (?) circumferential measurements of a Bigfoot. In this instance, the dimensions of a presumed 8' tall, 711 lb. Sasquatch (from Table 1) will be estimated. This process requires two steps
The known dimensions of a 6' tall, 234 lb. heavyweight boxer will be scaled to a 6' tall 300 lb. weight.
Those dimensions will then be scaled to 7' and 8' heights, with the corresponding weights given from Table 1.
Note that the basic build of this, mesomorphic (and decidedly stout) boxer is somewhat different from the presumably, more thickly, proportioned Sasquatch. However, it is as good of a starting point as any. Table 2 below summarizes the results of this process. Eq. (2) was utilized to compute the R ratios (or circumferential ratios), with height and weight values being presumed from the previous arguments. It is also assumed through all of this discussion that the body density of a Bigfoot is very similar to that of a human. The anecdotal reports of their swimming ability would imply as much.
Table 2
Circumferential Estimates
6' / 234 lb. Heavyweight 6' Scaled to 300 lbs. 7' / 476 lb. Bigfoot 8' / 711 lb. Bigfoot
Neck 20" 22.5" 26" 30"
Chest 42.5" 48" 56" 64"
Biceps 17" 19" 22" 25"
Forearm 14" 16" 18.5" 21.5"
Waist 34" 38.5" 45" 51.5"
Thigh 26.5" 30" 35" 40"
Calf 17" 19" 22" 25"
The essence of the calculations contained in the last column of Table 2 is that these dimensions are believed to be sufficient for an 8' tall Bigfoot to weigh 711 lbs. Basically, these dimensions would create a satisfactory volume for that weight. In the unlikely event that the body density of an adult Bigfoot is greater than that of the aforementioned muscular, human model, then the listed circumferences could be reduced slightly. Also, if these tall creatures have distinctly non-human length of arms or torso, the dimensions listed above could again be reduced somewhat.
Needless to say, a limited amount of correlating data from eyewitnesses is available. However, the famous encounter narrated by Albert Ostman did include some size estimates for the old female and the two males. He noted that the massive 8' male would require over a 30" collar and that the 7'+ female would weigh over 500 lbs., which compares well with Patty's estimate from Table 1. Also, he estimated that the adolescent 7' male would weigh about 300 lbs., with a 50-55" chest and a relatively trim 36-38" waist. The figures from Table 2 suggest a much more stoutly proportioned 7' adult, especially in the waist. A sharp reduction in the waist dimensions and some reduction in the chest and legs would be required to reduce the 476 lb. tabulated weight to the 300 lbs. assessed by Ostman. Of course, there is no reason to believe all Sasquatch fit the massive model described above. At a minimum, the adolescents need time to "fill out", just as our human species requires.
Speed Estimation
Numerous observers have made speed estimations of a Bigfoot in sprinting mode (or at some unknown portion of full stride). Some of the purported observations have been made by witnesses pacing a large bipedal creature with their automobile. Almost without variation, observers describe either the walking or running stride as quite fluid, or graceful, in its essence.
This report will attempt to make speed estimates based upon the simple scaling of human sprinting mechanics. Some minimal hypotheses are submitted in this discussion.
The bipedal gait, i.e., kinematics, of a running Sasquatch does not markedly differ from the bipedal gait of a human. The mechanics of running are quite complex, but there is no reason to believe there are any great differences between our species and Bigfoot.
The foot structure of a Sasquatch is as described by the theoretical analysis of the late Dr. Krantz. In other words, the foot structure of these large bipeds may be contributory to the long, flat-footed running style so often described by witnesses as "fluid". Note that the forward positioning of the ankle, and the attendant distal connectivity of the tendons as theorized by Krantz, would provide mechanical leverages well suited for climbing but would not be the ideal model for a hominoid sprinter.
The human model to be used (i.e., directly scaled) for this estimate is a quite "average" sprinter with a proportionately long, fluid stride, namely this author as a high school runner many years past. The stride of this 5'7" runner was 7.5' and at maximum speed, 4.2 strides per second were taken. This works out to a top speed of 21 mph. (For comparison, a typical world-class sprinter takes an approximate 8' stride at 4.9 strides per second, for a maximum of 27 mph). Also, as an extreme example, this author recalls a 6' 2" Olympic sprinter in the early 60's with a reputed 9' 3" stride.
The direct scaling of stride length versus height (5' 7" versus 8') would predict a 10.74' stride for an 8' Sasquatch. At the same 4.2 strides per second, the top speed would compute to a maximum 31 mph sprint. If one uses the world-class human comparison at 4.9 strides per second, the top speed of our prototype Sasquatch works out to 36 mph. In either eventuality, these calculations would seem to discount some of the more extreme estimates of speed (> 45 mph) that have been ascribed to a Bigfoot by a few observers. However, the concept of "quickness", "agility" or the remarkable acceleration commonly attributed to these creatures is another matter entirely, and will be broached after the next section.
Strength Estimate
A methodology that utilizes the speed estimates from above, a smattering of rigid body mechanics, and derivations from calculus will be employed to make a strength evaluation of our representative 8' Sasquatch. Fortunately, the readers of this essay will not be required to perform the mathematics behind this analysis. Only the simplest, technical highlights will be presented, along with the appropriate explanations.
The kinematics of bipedal running are certainly quite complex, but it should not be a mistaken conjecture to assign great similarities with the gait and physical mechanics of a Sasquatch to a human counterpart. Numerous observers have almost universally implied that the movements are very human-like. Without making this discussion more complicated than it need be, the motion of a leg in full stride requires that certain hip muscles contract at the top of each stride, provide a twisting (i.e., torque) load to the leg mass pivoting below. Note that the leg is momentarily at rest at the beginning of each stride. At that time these muscles produce a maximum angular acceleration of the leg mass. The physics of this action can be ascertained as the applied torque equaling the mass moment of inertia of the leg times the angular acceleration of the leg, or
Referring to the previous section, the angular acceleration of the prototype Bigfoot leg should be nearly identical to that of the human counterpart. This is certainly true if the number of strides per second are equivalent, as has been postulated previously. However, the great difference between the representative human and the Sasquatch is in the value of the mass moment of inertia of the leg structure. Without going into the mathematical niceties of the calculation, the definition of mass moment of inertia for a "rod", pivoting about one end, with mass, m, length, L, and maximum elliptical cross-section radius, a, is given as,
It is important to realize that the next calculation of applied torque (i.e., strength) for the human and the Sasquatch is not dependent upon the assumed cross-section shape of the leg mass. (The result is the same whether Eq. (3) is derived for an ellipse, circle, rectangle or any other general shape of the leg sections). Now the comparison of strength for Sasquatch versus human can be evaluated. Eq. (3) above can be stated as a ratio,
(3)
or,
(4)
giving
(5)
The only mathematical assumptions here are as follows:
The leg mass ratio is the same as the body mass ratio (711/165).
The leg length ratio is the same as the height ratio (96/67).
The cross-section radius ratio is proportional to leg circumference ratio (40/24).
The 4.2 strides per second, presumed for both the 8' Bigfoot and the human representation, would strongly suggest the same maximum angular acceleration, a, for both.
General physical strength of the Sasquatch is no different than that derived for the specific body part evaluated here, namely, the applied couple (torque) produced by the hip muscles.
Note that if the Sasquatch can sprint at 4.9 strides per second, the calculation in Eq. (5) will indicate an applied torque/strength ratio of 10.4. These values can be viewed in light of reputed strength of other primates. Chimpanzees (with near human weight) have been estimated to possess five times human strength and gorillas supposedly have 10 times human strength. The hypothetical strength levels computed above at least pass the "common sense" test for such a large hominid. No assessment is set forth for the (obviously) unknown distal connectivity (i.e., mechanical leverage) of a Bigfoot's muscle-to-bone structure. It is this author's opinion that the coarse estimates displayed above are, essentially, conservatively low. Lifestyle issues of these large mammals would certainly dictate an exceptionally well-conditioned body. Finally, to put this strength assessment into perspective, it is not inconceivable that these reclusive hominids can bench-press a ton and leg press the car in your garage.
The Agility Implication
Perhaps even more significant than the strength levels presented above are the associated "agility" (or "quickness", or "acceleration") factors that are implicit in the preceding calculations. The ability to accelerate is directly proportional to the ratio of applied force to the mass being moved, as Sir Isaac Newton so wisely observed. The concept of acceleration is often expressed, by those not concerned with the mathematics of physics, as the general observation of quickness or agility. Using our same human comparison and the preceding computations, one can define the strength-to-weight ratio of the Sasquatch versus the human counterpart with the rather simple relation,
Based upon this uncomplicated calculation the implications of Bigfoot agility, in comparison to the human example, are quite significant. First, it would indicate that these creatures would be able to attain their top running speed in half the time of our human comparable. Since a human sprinter requires 5 to 6 seconds to obtain maximum speed, the Sasquatch would only need 3 seconds. This physical attribute would certainly come in handy while hunting (i.e., ambushing) elk or deer, assuming, of course, that this activity is part of their lifestyle. In a similar vein, the ability to make sudden movements would be advantageous in snatching "quicker" food sources, such as fish or small mammals.
Secondly, this strength-to-weight ratio would imply an exceptional ability to climb. Imagine how easy it would be to move up a hill if one's human body mass were effectively reduced in half, yet all previous strength was maintained. Additionally, if the foot structure of a Sasquatch is as hypothesized by Dr. Krantz, the mechanical leverages would further enhance their climbing abilities. There are certainly very many witnesses who have reported the extraordinary quickness that these creatures have displayed bounding up steep embankments when surprised by the human encounter. Note, of course, that none of this discussion is offered as proof in any form; it is left to the reader to draw all inferences and conclusions. The last section of this essay will expound upon this concept, namely, can it all be true?
. . . Fools and Liars, All?
Perhaps the most difficult aspect in accepting the existence of such shadowy creatures in our very own back yard is that, essentially, the concept defies common wisdom (and academic approval). This is especially true for those with only casual knowledge of this mystery's scope.
It is useful to reiterate several observations provided by other investigators.
First, the concept of maintaining an ironclad hoax for well over a century is beyond the pale. The wide spectrum of observers and the time/geography involved serve, realistically, to make it an unrealizable task in carrying out such a hoax.
Also, detailed analysis of certain aspects of the reported evidence is remarkably consistent. For example, the mathematical analysis of recorded footprint lengths (as set forth by other investigators) describes an excellent fit to the well-known Gaussian distribution (i.e., "Bell curve"). The difficulty in faking such a distribution over a large time frame and wide geographical span is practically insurmountable. Equally significant, documented compilations of eyewitness' estimates of height indicate a trend that slowly increases with northern latitude of the observation. Considering that a mammal's ability to maintain body temperature in cool climates is benefited by increased body size, the trend described is, at least, notable and reasonable.
As a final evaluation, a simple probabilistic approach will be employed to assess the credence of the large number of eyewitness reports. The method employed herein will be to evaluate the so-called "null hypothesis", which is merely a technique to affirm a viewpoint by effectively disproving the opposing position.
For example, let us conservatively state that the probability of any particular eyewitness report being either a deliberate hoax or the product of incompetent observation as being 99%! Then, let us take the 100 "most believable" reports and determine the probability that all of these reports are false. Based upon simple theory of compound probability, the chance that all are false can be shown to be,
.99100 = .366 = 36.6%
The null hypothesis would then dictate that the probability is 1.0 - .366 = 63.4% that at least one report was produced by an honest, competent observer. Since the number of recorded observations is far greater than 100 and it is similarly doubtful that 99% of the general public are worthless interpreters, the actual probability that at least one report is valid is well over 99%.
In conclusion, there is certainly no proof of the existence of such reclusive hominids contained within this dissertation. But the one thread of "truth" that this author wishes to convey is that the hypothetical analysis presented herein is independently generated, yet quite consistent with many eyewitness accounts. Perhaps the only aspect of this mystery that is more preposterous than its circumstantial/factual substance is the chance that it is all a superbly conducted ruse.
Portions of this website are reprinted under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law as educational material without benefit of financial gain. This proviso is applicable throughout the entire website.
Although people often mistake known animals for Sasquatches, the legitimate reports describe a very similar animal. Usually the eyewitnesses never believed in Sasquatch until they actually see one. Sometimes footprints accompany the sighting, making the sighting more credible. I have interviewed scores of people who have witnessed a Sasquatch, and all but two were likely telling the truth. I've also seen three sets of tracks of which all were convincing, with huge strides of giant feet ... in hard packed ground. There is no way a man can walk comfortably and impact a 1 inch deep track with a stride from 4 to 6 feet apart! This man also having no arch in his foot!
Vocalizations of Sasquatch have been analyzed, and determined to be that of an un-known primate. Below is one example ...
Estimates of Pitch and Vocal Tract Length from Recorded Vocalizations of Purported Bigfoot*
by R. Lynn Kirlin and Lasse Hertel
Having analyzed a tape recording of purported Bigfoot speech using accepted techniques of signal processing, the authors conclude that the means and ranges of the recorded pitch and estimated vocal tract length of the speakers indicate that the sounds were made by a creature with "vocal features corresponding to a larger physical size than man." They also conclude that the tape shows none of the expected signs of being prerecorded or re-recorded at altered speed and hence diminish the probability of a hoax.
This paper is based on the analysis of a tape recording which was received by the authors in the spring of 1977. The circumstances under which the recording was made were reported as follows. On the night of 21 October 1972, Alan Berry, a journalist presently living in Sacramento, California, participated in the recording of what he and others believed to be one or more Bigfoot.1 The event took place in the High Sierras of northern California "at about 8500 feet in late October after the first snowfall, some 2000 feet higher than the nearest road and about eight miles distant to the nearest established trail."2 There were previous and subsequent recordings by members of the group at the same location, but the recording of 21 October is of exceptionally high quality and allows direct processing of the vocalizations without first specially filtering the noise. In addition, there is a wide range of vocalization, much of which shows a human-like level of articulation. There are also considerable lengths of what might be termed moans, whines, growls, grunts, and even some whistles, which no primates other than man are known to produce. The phrase might be written, "Gob-uh-gob-uh-gob, ugh, muy tail." Other professionals have listened to the tapes and have expressed their opinions, which have essentially been qualitative.3
The authors of this paper are neither linguists, anthropologists, nor speech pathologists, but have skills applicable to the processing of signals, including speech. The information which might be derived from speech is considerable, but only some of it is useful in attempting to answer the questions raised by the existence of these recordings. Given the constraints of the available equipment, which is really quite state-of-the-art, the first problem to the researchers was to determine what features of the vocalizations might lead to a decision as to the authenticity of the tapes. It was quickly determined that pitch frequency, the rate of opening and closing of the glottis, would be easy to extract from vowel segments and should be indicative of vocalizer size, reasoning that an extraordinarily low distribution of pitch in comparison with that of human would correspond to heavier or larger vocal chords.
Subsequently, it was also realized that format frequencies, the resonance in speech, are an indication of the size of the vocal tract. Indeed, a review of the literature showed that speech signals can provide estimates of not only vocal tract length but also vocal tract cross-sectional area as a function of distance from the glottis to the lips.4 However, using present techniques, the area functions are apt to be quite inaccurate for small errors in length estimation. Therefore, only length estimates and not area estimates were subsequently found, but these are sufficient for statistical comparison with known lengths of potential vocalizers other than the hypothesized Bigfoot.
Estimates of both pitch and vocal tract length are therefore extracted from segments on the tapes. This information is displayed via scattergram of pitch versus length, which allows easy visual comparison with human data, probability intervals for which are shown on the same plot. This approach is suggested for comparing data with that of other potential vocalizers, and it also allows determination of results if tape speed were changed. Lastly, extrapolation of average pitch and length estimates to body size is given, corresponding to human proportions; the results indicate a significantly large size.
VOCAL TRACT LENGTH ESTIMATES
The known estimators of human vocal tract length all have inherent variances. An estimator, which we will refer to as L1,5 requires knowledge of both resonant and antiresonant frequencies, but was found by the authors to work fairly well with only the resonance (formats). A modification of that estimator, which we will call L2, uses only known formats and iterates through possible tract lengths to find a "best" length.
A more recent paper by Wakita included considerable data on human inter-speaker format variances and length estimates for each of nine English vowels.6 This data allowed formulation by Kirlin of a third length estimator, L3, using maximum a posterior estimation, given the formats of the vowel.7 L3 is quite accurate for human speech. Without a priori information on the human tract lengths this estimator becomes a maximum-likelihood estimator, L4, which allows a greater, less accurate range of lengths, more appropriate to tracts which are larger than human but which are also human-like.
The human-like criteria for L3 and L4 warrants further comment. The literature dealing with speech production and the evolution of the necessary vocal tract reveals that tracts of non-human anthropoids are very different in that, when body size is normalized, human tracts are considerably longer.8 This results from the fact that human vocal chords are low in the neck, where as others are immediately at the rear of the oral cavity, as shown in Figure 1. This difference allows human-like tracts to produce certain unique plosive consonants (|g|, |k|, for example) and format sets as in the vowels |i|, |a|, |u|.9 Since |g| is used in the "gob" phrase on the tape, it cannot be produced by a known non-human-like anthropoid tract. That is, the speaker is either human or has a human-like tract. If it is human, the tract length will fall in the known range for humans. If it is exceptionally long, it is likely not human. However, if length falls within human range, that does not, of course, prove it to be human.
The estimators for tract length are given in Appendix A. All four were used and the results averaged. L3 tends to force the results to be more typically human.
PITCH PERIOD ESTIMATION
The reciprocal of pitch frequency is pitch period. A nominal frequency for an adult male is 115 Hz, and the corresponding period is 8.7 milliseconds. Longer periods would indicate longer or thicker vocal chords. Due to the wide range of pitch for any human, much less all humans, only extremely low pitches (or long pitch periods) could be considered conclusive, barring tape speed changes.
Estimation algorithms for pitch are also of wide variety, but one which has been considered the best recently is that given by the cepstrum.10 The cepstrum is defined as the inverse Fourier transform of the log-magnitude of the frequency spectrum. When a vowel is sustained for 30-50 milliseconds the resulting sound wave will normally contain several pitch periods. Processing the speech segment to yield a cepstrum produces a plot as is shown in Figure 2. The peak will occur at a time equal to the pitch period. Only those segments which have a well- defined pitch are used in the results.
FORMANT EXTRACTION
In order to estimate vocal tract length, resonance in vowel sounds must be determined. The preliminary results of this research utilized the windowed (or weighted) cepstrum technique,11 which essentially removes frequency variations in the power spectrum which are due to the pitch-rate impulses of glottal pressure. However, the smoothed frequency spectrum which results by Fourier- transforming the windowed cepstrum still often contains ambiguous peaks which may be erroneously interpreted as formats. The tendency is to count too many low-frequency peaks as formats, thus effecting vocal tract length estimates which become too long.
A more accurate means of determining formats is provided by "linear prediction" techniques which have been developed over the last six to eight years.12 Linear prediction algorithms make a least-squared-error fit to the speech segment, using a predetermined number of resonances. This technique is much preferred by the authors, and the results obtained are quite reliable.13 Formats themselves allow comparison with human data, and this is the subject of continuing work.
RESULTS
The resulting estimates of pitch and vocal tract length are plotted in the scattergram of Figure 4. Superimposed on the data points are region borders approximately corresponding to ninety-five per cent probability intervals around means for equivalent data from human males. Human pitch statistics are given in various literature, some of which is reproduced in Figure 3.14 It can be seen in Figure 4 that, even though both pitch and length estimates vary considerably, the means and ranges indicate a creature with vocal features corresponding to a larger physical size than man.
Assuming 5' 11" to be the height for an average man, 115 Hz pitch, and 17.8 cm his average tract length, the creature or creatures on the recording, using all data shown, may be estimated to have a proportional height of 7' 3" by pitch or 6' 4" by tract length. Data from the "grr" sounds alone shows quite different means, and yield heights of 8' 2" by pitch and 7' 4" by tract length.
Figure 5 repeats the same data, but superimposes the ninety pitch and length region of a "deep voiced male" producing the vowel 3, which requires the longest humantract length. Note that the "grr" data falls outside this region.
The possibility of tape speed alteration should be considered. The effect of speed change on Figures 4 and 5 is easily determined. A speed-up on playback causes all recorded frequencies to appear higher; a slow-down on playback moves them lower. Playback slow-down is the situation of concern. Format frequencies and pitch frequencies will both appear lower in proportion to the speed change. As both pitch period and vocal tract lengths are inversely proportionate to frequency, these estimates will be lengthened, both by the same proportion. For example, a tape slow-down by a factor of three would lengthen both pitch period and vocal tract length estimates by three; therefore, a data point will move along a line through the origin p=cL, where c is the constant which forces the line through the data point. This means that pitch-length ranges of any known creature could be shifted along lines of p=cL, as shown in Figure 6. Any resulting good match of these regions with the region of the Bigfoot data makes that creature a possible source of the vocalization, but on the basis of pitch and length comparison alone. Such a match concludes nothing with regard to linguistics or articulation rate. It is the opinion of the authors that the vocalizations on the tape were recorded at the speed they appear to be because the articulation rate and the range of vocal tract lengths are quite broad at constant pitch during the growl or "grr" sounds. However, the suggested matching of regions for other possible vocalizers should eventually be done.
Consideration of a human source should include the possibility of the human simply lowering his pitch. It should first be realized that 60-80 Hz pitches are difficult for most male humans to produce, and when one can it is with an accompanying decrease in volume which was not evident on the recordings.15 An alternative possibility is prerecording with subsequent slow-down in playback, which would also proportionally increase vocal tract length estimates as shown in Figure 6. The mean pitch period estimate of about 12-13 milliseconds does show this corresponding lengthening of tract length with respect to the means of the other data, but the tract length range is considerably greater and not easily explained. A second alternative is prerecording with greater amplification or "close microphone" during segments of low pitch. Although this may be possible, examination of the original tape showed no 60 Hz frequencies, which would have in a prerecording if it had been recorded using alternating- current rather than battery power.16 Thus any possible prerecording would fall under the constraints of battery power.
The possibility of prerecording normal language segments and re-recording by playing backward at varied speeds has been mentioned in some of the qualitative observations on spectrograms and listenings. The authors of this paper have played the tape backward and find no clearly identifiable speech. It should be realized that if any recording of any language were played backwards, eventually some phrase will occur which could "sound like" a known phrase in any language. Tape speed alteration is very unlikely in the "huu-u" and "gob" sequences because of the narrow range of vocal tract lengths extracted. Similarly, the growlings are quite consistent in pitch, even though tract length varies considerably. This fact is not consistent with tape speed alteration.
The possibility of more than one speaker, or even species, should also be explored. A look at the data in Figures 4 and 5 does show some gross separate clustering of tract length estimators between "grr" and the other data, but the two clusters overlap; the 2-σ intervals are shown in Fig. 7. The sounds are potentially from the same species. The listener could very well imagine two creatures "conversing." (Three distinct sets of foot tracks were found the morning following the recordings session.) Vocal tract length estimates taken from these two separate segments do not show a significant difference, but even though pitch averages do, the suggestion of two creatures in these segments is not confirmed because wide pitch variations are too easy to reproduce. However, the "grr" cluster is a more acceptable reason for suspecting two creatures.
ANALYSIS OF THE WHISTLES
The recording contains some whistle exchanges between humans and the creatures. Analysis of the whistling is not included in the data groups used for analysis of pitch and vocal tract length, but is treated separately in this section.
There are two types of whistles found in the recordings. First, there are human types of whistling, both where there are no harmonics or formants present, and also where there are exact harmonics present, probably caused by a saturated microphone. A smoothed power spectrum of a typical human whistle is shown in Figure 8. Note that there are no formants or harmonics present. The low frequency components are due to the noise from the airstream. Second, there are whistles which are found to have non-harmonic formant frequencies, but no pitches.
Table 1 shows for six data segments the three first formant frequencies together with their respective vocal tract length estimates. By amplifying the whistle, the microphone can be saturated, and it will then produce harmonics as shown in Figure 9.
The formants were found using the linear prediction technique, and the values were checked using a smoothed power spectrum of each segment.
The formants and corresponding short vocal tract lengths found indicate the likelihood that the creatures could be able to whistle utilizing only a part of their vocal tract. If the creatures have a human-like vocal tract, they might be able to whistle using the constriction between the two vocal cavities. Such whistles can also be produced using some kind of a musical instrument, known to produce both harmonic and non-harmonic overtones.
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male.
The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration. Although a time-varying speed could possibly produce such formant distributions, an objective hearing and the articulation rate do not support that hypothesis.
Statistical analysis was applied to groups of vocal tract estimates from different vocalizations, and a significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with human data the results indicated that there could possibly be three speakers, one of which is non-human. The average vocal tract length was found to be 20.2 cm. This is significantly longer than for a normal human male. Extrapolation of average estimators, using human proportions, gives height estimates of between 6' 4" and 8' 2".
Analysis of the rapid articulations in the beginning of the recording (gob-gob) resulted in human-like vocal tract lengths. Also, the sound |g| in "gob" suggests a human-like vocal tract (two vocal cavities).
The pitch periods found cover the broad range of pitch periods for both normal human male and low pitched human male. However, they are mainly distributed around the data for the low-pitched human male.
Pitch and length estimates vary considerably but they are all found to be within the 95 per cent confidence interval for human speech with varying tape speed; however, assuming that there is only one vocalizer, then time-varying tape speed is necessary to produce data over such a wide range.
Both typical human whistles and some abnormal types of whistles were found. By using the formants from the abnormal whistles, very short vocal tract lengths were estimated. These whistles could either have been produced with some kind of a musical instrument or by the creature using only a part of its vocal tract.
It is hoped that the remaining uncertainties will not be considered reason for dismissing the recordings. The possibilities for prerecording are many, but there is no clear reason to believe it is likely. If Bigfoot is actually proven to exist, the vocalizations on these tapes may well be of great anthropological value, being a unique observation of Bigfoot in his natural environment.
Notes
*This article includes, in addition to material presented at the Conference, data from Lasse Hertel, "An Application of Speech Processing Techniques to Recordings of Purported Bigfoot Vocalizations to Estimate Physical Parameters" (M.S. thesis, University of Wyoming, 1978).
1. A description of the circumstances surrounding the recording is given in Alan Berry and A. Slate, Bigfoot (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), chapters 1, 2, and 3, and Appendix B.
2. Ibid.
3. Some of these are reproduced in ibid., Appendix B, including a spectrograph of about four seconds of the recording, in which the "speech" is highly articulated and thus the subject of controversy.
4. See, especially, A. Paige and V. Zue, "Calculation of Vocal Tract Length," IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 18, no. 3 (1970): 268-70, and "Computation of Vocal Tract Area Functions," IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 18.1 1 (1970): 7-18; M.R. Schroeder, "Determination of the Geometry of the Human Vocal Tract by Acoustic Measurements," Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 41, no. part 2 (1967): 1002-10; P. Mermelstein, "Determination of the Vocal-Tract Shape from Measured Formant Frequencies," Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 41, 5 (1967): 1283-94; H. Wakita, quot;Direct Estimation of the Vocal Tract Shape by Inverse Filtering of Acoustic Speech Waveforms," IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 21, no. 5 (1973): 417-27, and "Normalization of Vowels by Vocal-Tract Length and Its Application to Vowel Identification," IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 25, no. 2 (1977): 183-92; and H. Wakita and A.H. Gray, Jr., "Numerical Determination of the Lip Impedance and Vocal Tract Area Functions," IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 23, no. 6 (1975): 574-80.
5. See "Calculation of Vocal Tract Length."
6. "Direct Estimation of Vocal Tract Length."
7. R.L. Kirlin, "A Maximum A-Posteriori Estimation of Vocal Tract Length," IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (Dec. 1978): 571-74.
8. See P. Lieberman, "On the Evolution of Language: A Unified View," in Primate Functional Morphology and Evolution, ed. Russell H. Tuttle (The Hague and Paris: Mr 1975).
9. Ibid.
10. See A.M. Noll, "Cepstrum Speech Determination," Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 41 (1967): 293-309, and L.R. Rabiner et al., "A Comparative Study of Several Speech Detection Algorithms," IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing 24, no. 5 (1976): 399-423.
11. See J.L. Flanagan, Speech Analysis, Synthesis, and Perception (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1972).
12. See J.D. Markel and A.H. Gray, Jr., Linear Prediction of Speech (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1976).
13. The computer algorithm is described in ibid. A polynomial root-finding subroutine is also required.
14. Reproduced from ibid. Vocal tract estimates for male humans are given in Wakita, "Normalization of Vowels."
15. Some pitches in the low sixties were recorded but are not shown in this data.
16. See Berry and Slate, Bigfoot, Appendix A.
From: Manlike Monsters On Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence, Halpin & Ames, eds. (Canada: UVBC Press, pp. 274-290, 1980)
Through my years I have come to understand, I believe, the Sasquatch biology. I feel that the following description fits the animal well. This description is based on collective evidence, including reports, but should in no way be observed as 100% actual.
Sasquatch Origin
Originally the Sasquatch resided in China, known at the time as Gigantopithicus. Remains of this huge ape-like creature exist only in China, mostly represented by teeth and jawbones. As the Chinese Dynasties expanded, Gigantopithicus' were driven off by man, by Chinese expansion and wandered over the Bering Strait Land Bridge into North America, at the same time AmerIndians Migrated, to adapt into the Sasquatch and the AmerIndians that exist today.
Upon arrival here they confronted Native Americans who also became their enemy. Sasquatches had no choice but to hide in the dark, as Native legends tell. It became such a war that the Sasquatches could only survive by hiding, and walking only at night. Their only means for survival was to form an existence of stealth and secrecy. They had no idea of how to create fire, or weapons. By the time the strongest Sasquatches adapted this way, their numbers were very low, and remain so today. This adaptation exploited the rugged wilderness areas throughout North America. When white-men arrived and began to develop the land, Sasquatches were pushed into even more remote areas for breeding and raising young.
Gigantopithicus blackii skull reconstruction (Dr. Grover T. Krantz)
Modern Sasquatch Biology
The Modern Sasquatch resides primarily in the Pacific Northwest Cascade Mountain Range from Northern California north to British Columbia, Canada. These nomads wander constantly in search of food which consists primarily of vegetation, fruits, berries, nuts, some roots, saplings, and insect grubs, with fish being a primary substance. Meat is a secondary dietary supplement and will be consumed, especially if opportunistic, and that includes deer from hunters who only wound their intended subject. In some areas they prefer fish to other food items. Fish appears to be an attractive prey to Sasquatches, whether spoiling, hanging to dry, or being cooked. This may be something imprinted on the young Sasquatch by adults at an early age, apparently recognizing fish as a potential food item without regard to human occupation of the source. Several researchers have reportedly attracted Sasquatch to their area of research in remote areas by using fish as a bate.
Most reside or wander near rivers or lakes and small ponds. Water is an attractive item to the Sasquatch, and nearly all sightings and footprints are located near a water source. It appears that all legitimate Sasquatch sightings and footprint finds are located near or within a short distance of a water source.
Sasquatches can swim, and this attribute is not normally mentioned in books or other text. Since their feet are flexible, as noted by Dr. Meldrum, they serve as great flippers while in deep water. It is interesting to note that they can apparently negotiate open seas as between the B.C. coast and Vancouver Island, the southeast Alaska coast and Prince of Wales Island (and others), and even as far south and a distant swim as from the California coast to Catalina Island (22 miles). In fact, many coastal Islands along Washington, B.C. and Alaska have had Sasquatch footprint finds and sightings. California is lacking in their activity on Catalina Island, but reports do exist there. Their swimming methods can only be imagined, but I propose that they hold their feet and legs together and use a pumping method with a cuping scooping of the forearms for directional ability, similar to most other wild animals who negotiate water travel. It is possible that they can also dive deep if necessary, such as to avoid location by a passing boat. Swimming activity, most likely, occurs at night when no boats can see them except accidentally ... a very unlikely scenario for anyone familiar with nighttime boat travel.
During the breeding season, which occurs periodically later in life, they reside in remote wilderness areas where man is not often found. The males seek a mate, and they develop a family structure for raising the young newborn. They reside in this same territory until the juvenile is old enough to care for itself, then wander away from that area once the juvenile can care for him/herself. One of these suspected areas is called "Indian Heaven Back-country", on the eastern side of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State. Many reports of apparent family groups have been witnessed in that area, but it is very remote, and usually requires horseback excursions into the area. Additionally, riding into such areas on horseback, and the presence of horses or other large animals, apparently makes the Sasquatch loose his guard, so to speak. While in such areas, and on horseback, especially during the nighttime camping hours is when people have the most compelling encounters with Sasquatches.
The juvenile Sasquatch wanders aimlessly for several years once leaving the family structure, probably after about 12 years of age, although no one really knows how old a Sasquatch is before it "leaves the nest", so to speak. It is most likely these juveniles that are most often witnessed by man in Human inhabited areas. The curiosity of the juveniles make them more likely to be seen, and even a 12 year old can be quite large (up to 6.5 feet tall or higher) although they are nocturnal as are all ages. These young Sasquatches are often mischief makers and almost invite human observance. During their nomadic wanderings they may travel extreme distances from their natal grounds, and are reported in every U.S. State and Canadian Province. It should also be mentioned that a 6.5 foot tall individual can carry twice the weight of a man, and footprints that measure 14 inches long by 5 or 6 inches wide. Some footprints are shorter in length with a wide ball, and flat-footed.
When the juvenile becomes an adult, at probably 16 years of age, he/she returns to the natal area, or any remote wilderness found on the way. They seek a mate by vocalizing, of which much has been recorded and analyzed, form a family complex, and continue the process as their parents had for them. It is very likely, although unlikely, that this is conducted in areas near where Humans reside, or may begin in Human occupied areas and later continued in remote regions. In some of these areas the local Humans are shocked into reality, but once the mate is found all else is quiet and set aside from Humans. It is more than likely that upon locating a mate the Sasquatch moves to a remote area to raise the young, as is witnessed in other primates.
The life of a Sasquatch is probably more that 40 years, especially if they are a higher form of primate. When they die, however, they are not unlike any other wild animal. They seek a place to die where their body will not be discovered. Once they are dead, the body is quickly consumed by predators and insects, and becomes one with the soil on which it lays. It should be noted here that naturally dead bears are never found in the wild; nor are other large mammals. All large animals hide themselves in areas that will not be discovered by predators when they feel sick. This is where they die, and it is not likely humans will locate them unless by chance only a day or two after death.
During the 1970's I investigated several Sasquatch reports in the Mojave Desert and surrounding area. There are many good reports of these animals in the desert southwest, but I am not convinced that these animals are actually desert residents. Rather, I believe they simply wander through the desert from forest to forest, and probably find that food is abundant in the sandy and rocky environment. Since they are nocturnal, they are not often witnessed, especially in the desert where few people reside. I have written two articles about these Desert Sasquatches of which the links to these are provided below. From these articles I am still receiving reports from witnesses in southern California, and all of these places I mention in my articles are active to this very day. I am also providing a general link to Bobbie Short's excellent Web Site where you can find out just about anything Sasquatch related, as well as a few extra links where you can download vocalizations or research Sasquatch activity in your area of North America. If you are a Sasquatch Investigator you may want to link to the Archaeological methods area and learn what it takes, and what is needed, to collect good scientific evidence at Sasquatch activity sites.
Below is the recorded Sasquatch Sound that I feel is most likely a real recording of a Sasquatch, recording by Linda Williford. I investigated this activity for several months afterwards, and I believe she recorded an actual Sasquatch call.
Download a Recording by Linda Williford of a Sasquatch in Snohomish,WA 1979
Go To BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS: California Sightings List
Go To Sasquatch Activity Geographical Database
Go To Sasquatch Archaeological Evidence Collection Methods
Go To Edwards Air Force Base Surveilance, by Douglas E. Trapp
Go To Edwards Air Force Base Nightstalker, by the late B. Ann Slate
Go To Southern California Desert Sasquatch, By Douglas E. Trapp
Unfortunately the opportunities to actually see a Sasquatch are very limited. It is a matter of being in the right (or wrong) place at the right (or wrong) time. I have been close, I believe, several times. But never close enough to see one. Since they are nomadic wanderers of the night, and apparently have a small population (2000 nation-wide is the generally accepted estimate), the odds of actually seeing one are very slim. It's really too bad that the people who DO see them are not familiar with them, and often do not report the sighting for fear of ridicule. Those who DO report their sighting are often joked about by media personalities. Until the day arrives when a body is actually recovered, the general population will disregard these animals as nothing more than a myth ... after such a recovery there will be a lot of funding available to discover more about them. I am waiting for that day.
If you have any particular questions about Sasquatches, please write me through the link below.
E-mail Douglas E. Trapp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigfoot: CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that another erect primate shares this globe with mankind. The evidence may not be conclusive, but it is certainly ample to establish that the matter should be further investigated. In the meantime, the person who finds himself in a position to obtain a specimen should do so, in the knowledge that it is important, and that such creatures are neither rare nor human.
- John Green, Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A long Native North American tradition of large hairy humanoid animals exists and cannot be dismissed easily."
- Loren Coleman, Research Associate, Muskie Institue, University of Southern Maine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is forced to conclude that a man-like life-form of gigantic proportions is living at the present time in the wild areas of the north-western United States and British Columbia. If I have given the impression that this conclusion is-to me-profoundly disturbing, then I have made my point. That such a creature should be alive and kicking in our midst, unrecognized and unclassifiable, is a profound blow to the credibility of modern anthropology.
- Dr. John Napier, Bigfoot, the Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What most convinces me of the actual existence of Bigfoot is my personal experiences in the Cascade Mountains and Coast Range of Oregon. There is no substitute for field work. However, Dr. F. Henner Farenbach's work with a database of 551 footprints (obtained from John Green) adds evidence supporting the "actuality" of what some of us call "Bigfoot". Another piece of evidence that has always intrigued me is personally interviewing many people who claim to have had a bigfoot encounter soon thereafterwards, and noticing how really shook up, upset, and frightened they are. I don't think they're "faking" it. Old Native American tales about Bigfoot like beings, written down from 50-125 years ago, have many similar characteristics to modern Bigfoot reports from people of other cultures, which lends support to the idea that this phenomenon is not another case of mass hysteria or wishful thinking. My personal experience suggests Bigfoot is much stronger than human beings, and faster, bigger, with better eyesight, better hearing, and a better sense of smell. Who's to say they aren't more intelligent as well? The summit ridges and mountain peaks of the Cascade Mountains and the Coast Range are their domain. You don't find Bigfoot, Bigfoot finds you."
- Henry Franzoni, Administrator, Internet Virtual Bigfoot Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Despite an overflow of public hype and hysteria, caused mainly by hoaxers, Hollywood, and over-zealous (and sometimes eccentric) 'bigfoot hunters and experts' (to name a few), there seems to be a good amount of credible evidence pointing towards the possible existence of a large bipedal primate, commonly known as sasquatch or bigfoot (and which may be a species of primitive humanoid thought extinct), in the Pacific Northwest, and possibly in other parts of North America. However, the creature, cannot be conclusively proven until a specimen is collected - whether by killing or capture. Until then, we should remain skeptical, but open-minded, of all alleged evidence of sasquatch. If we do not, the search for sasquatch will loose credibility among scientists, the media and thus the general public."
- Ben S. Roesch, Editor, The Cryptozoology Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no question in my mind that Unknown Bipeds, globally situated, do exist".
- Robert Stansberry, IVBC Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is more evidence to support the existance of Bigfoot than that supporting the existence of the world's most notable people. Let's face it, history, prior to the invention of the camera, is basically just a collection of recorded "sightings." We believe strictly on the strength of written evidence. With Bigfoot, we not only have sightings but also footprints and photographs. There appears to be a double standard in the scientific world.."
- Christopher L. Murphy, Progressive Research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO KILL, CAPTURE, or LEAVE ALONE
The question regarding the physical evidence for the existance of Sasquatch is often debated. I am not sure some of these debates are based on common sense, since it is evident that all large animals known to exist on this planet were either captured or killed before they were accepted by science. I will deal with each opinion in the order listed in this title ...
The act of killing a Sasquatch is a matter of the heart for some, yet a matter of certainty for many others. It often appears to be a debate on whether or not these animals may be related to humans, or human-like in some way. Several reports exist where a sightee had a gun, but refused to shoot the Sasquatch because it looked "too Human". However, research by the most noted investigators indicate that this animal is human-like only because it is bipedal (walks on two legs, primarily). Some dinosaurs were bipedal, but were not related to mankind. It is not likely that Sasquatches are human relatives any more than the Great Apes, and they are very likely related to Gigantopithicus as mentioned above within this page. Shooting and killing a Mountain Gorilla was necessary, at the time, before the species could be recognized scientifically. In our modern world, killing a specimen may not be necessary to prove its existance. If Gorilla were not killed, it would have been at least another 100 years before they were scientifically recognized. It is true that a dead specimen is not necessary in our modern world, yet we must understand that science is demanding a Sasquatch specimen from us. It is possible, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, that bones may be located, examined, catagorized, and conclusively added to the list of known primate species. However, such a discovery would almost require an "Act of God" because we know that large mammal bones or carcasses from natural deaths are never found ... never! There are no records of naturally dead bear, moose, elk (except Alaska in herding areas) or deer bones (other than antlers) and carcasses discovered in North America in recorded history. Since there are probably at least 100 Black Bear for ever 1 Sasquatch (re:the late Dr. Grover T. Krantz), it is very unlikely we will locate a carcass or bones of a Sasquatch, unless by pure luck. We have a much better opportunity to shoot and kill one. Recently, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization was successful in luring a Sasquatch to a mud puddle through the use of a combination of human and ape pheremones, with fruit set in the middle of the puddle. This resulted in the Skookum Cast of a Sasquatch body as it laid in the puddle retreiving the fruit. Additionally, they used vocal recordings of Sasquatch calls that had been previously analysed by several experts and indicating they were the sounds of an unknown primate. The combined use of these tools could be used to lure a Sasquatch to an area where one could be shot with a high powered rifle. I have had discussions about this with several researchers, and our collective conclusion is that the person with the gun, and those involved for the body extraction, may be in danger of attack by other Sasquatches lurking in the background. To eleviate this problem, a specialized robotic and remotely controlled device could be used. We know the military has such equipment, but it is not normally available for public use. Such a device could be instrumental in both the killing and recovery of a Sasquatch body in remote areas, additionally making such a project safe for humans. I a