"For more than a century, people have been saying that a huge,
hairy primitive human roams the unmapped mountains of the Northwest. Here
is the first tangible evidence that Bigfoot or Sasquatch really exists!"
Photos of Bigfoot, California's Legendary
by Ivan T. Sanderson
Sanderson was heavily credentialed, see his bio at the bottom...
At three-thirty p.m.
on the twentieth of October last year, two young men, Roger Patterson
and Bob Gimlin were "packing" it on horseback into one of the
last remaining great wilderness areas, northeast of Eureka, California. Their
saddlebags contained, on one side, rifles and grub and, on the other,
ready-loaded movie and still cameras and other equipment. They were following
a creek, which had been washed out two years ago in the terrible floods
that devastated most of northern California.
This was some twenty miles
beyond the end of an access road for logging and about thirty-five miles
in from the nearest and only blacktop road in this vast, as yet not fully
mapped area of National Forest. I have been up this Bluff Creek and, as
a botanist; I can tell you that it is rugged-four layers or tiers of trees,
the tallest up to 200 feet, and dense undergrowth. Also, the terrain goes
up and down a gigantic saw tooth.
Roger and Bob rounded a sharp bend in the sandy arroyo of the creek. Then
The horses reared suddenly in alarm and threw both the riders. Luckily,
Roger fell off to the right and, being an experienced horseman, disengaged
himself and grabbed his camera. Why? Because he had spotted what had turned
their horses into mad broncos. About 100 feet ahead, on the other side
of the creek bed, there was a huge, hairy creature that walked like a
The way Roger described it to me would not, I am afraid, make much sense
to you; but then, Roger had been hunting this sort of creature for many
years. What he actually said was: "Gosh darn it, Ivan, right there
was a Bigfoot. And, fer pity's sakes, she was a female! Just wait till
you see the film."
Roger is a North-westerner and he does not waste words, but what he does
say, I listen to. This is what he told me: "On the other side of
the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature
that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film,
to have been about seven feet tall.
Both Bob and I estimate--and this
pretty well matched what others told us from examination of the depth
to which her tracks sank into hard sand--that she would weigh about three
hundred and fifty pounds. She was covered with short, shiny, black hair,
even her big, droopy breasts. She seemed to have a sort of peak on the
back of her head, but whether this was longer hair or not I don't know. Anyhow, hair came right down her forehead to meet her eyebrows, if she
had any; and it came right up to just under her cheekbones. And--oh, get
this-she had no neck! What I mean is, the bottom of her head just seemed
to broaden out onto and into her wide, muscular shoulders. I don't think
you'll see it in the film, but she walked like a big man in no hurry,
and the soles of her feet were definitely light in color."
This last bit got me, as I have seen really black-skinned Melanesians
with pale pink palms and soles. I don't want to sound facetious, but this
whole thing gets "hairier and hairier," as you will see in a
Roger did something then that I have never known any professional photographers
to do, even if his camera was loaded with the right film, he had the cap
off the lens, the thing set at the right F stop and so on. He started
running, handholding his Kodak sixteen-mm loaded with Kodachrome film,
trying to focus on this "creature." What he got was just about
what any amateur would get in such circumstances. But then he got a real
As Roger put it: "She was just swinging along as the first part of
my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around
at me. She
wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and
the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new
"Okay," I said. "Tell me this, Roger--the hunting season
was on, wasn't it?" "You're darned shooting right it was,"
Bob Gimlin chimed in. "And out that way, anything moving with fur
on it is liable to get shot."
actually, there just aren't any hunters way up there, twenty miles beyond
the only road, known as the Bluff Creek access. Could it be that this
Mrs. Bigfoot knew all about guns but was puzzled by the whirring of a
small movie camera? And another thing: everybody who says they have been
close to one of these creatures or has found one of their "beds"
has stressed the ghastly, nauseating stink they exude and leave behind.
Was this what really scared the horses or did the horses scare the "Adorable
Woodsman," which is my name for the lady?
(While we referred
to this in the title as the "Abominable Snowman" for purposes
of quick identification, the Bigfoot or Sasquatch, zoologically, has nothing
to do with the Himalayan Abominable Snowman known for centuries in Asia
and first brought to the attention of the western world in 1921. Our lady
is a form of primitive, full-furred human. The Yeti, or Abominable Snowman
of the Himalayas is some sort of giant, rock-climbing ape, in my opinion,
and that of Professor Carleton S. Coon. The Yeti footprints found have
an opposed big toe, almost like a hand. The Bigfoot has an unopposed toe,
such as is seen only on human-type creatures.)
While Roger took the film, Bob got the horses calmed down and then rode
over the creek. Roger was running again after the Bigfoot, still handholding
his movie camera. Despite the logs and trash on the route she took-and
it was not even a game trail-he got sortie parting shots which turned
out to be of particular interest to the scientists. But we will come to
that point, I asked Bob - because he was then what is called "the
back-up man," which means that he was now close enough to see Roger
clearly.'' Just what was Roger doing?" "He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the
real thick bush." "Did you see her, too?" "Yeah, Ivan,
but 'way ahead and really taking off for the hills."
This brought me up sharp, because I had by that time viewed their film
(and half a dozen out-takes, blown up, in full color as transparencies,
which I had examined under strong magnifying lenses on an illuminated
shadow-box several times and projected by three different projectors).
In every case, the creature was--at standard speed for photogs (twenty-four
frames per sec) -as Roger said; at first the thing just ambling along,
swinging her rather long arms, not running scared, and even stopping for
a brief look-see over her shoulder as it were; then ambling on again into
the deep woods ....Yet here was the back-up man saying that she had "taken
off for the hills." Roger, however, backed up his back-up man unprompted.
"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber
and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean--because, when we lost
her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half
miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in
the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two
inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right
heel ahead; but when she got really going, she
left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel.
Man, she was running just like you and I do!" "Why 'she'?"
I asked Roger. "Well, Ivan, let's run that film through again, and
you tell me, as a trained zoologist, if that thing has pendulous breasts
We ran the film again, slowly, and we had a stop-and-hold device on the
projector by which we can hold any frame without fear of burning it. This
we did and, so help me, there are definitely large, pendant breasts fully
covered with short, black hair. No ape (or monkey) is known to have had
any such development of the female mammary glands. Human beings, on the other hand, do -- frequently.
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin actually had nothing much more to add.
They presented us, both newsmen and scientists, with this film for appraisal.
'We viewed it, and our findings follow. But, for my money, these young
men, after six years of sensible effort, have turned up with the first
bit of (possibly) concrete evidence for something that, however fantastic
it may sound, has been going on for years, both in this country and Canada-and
a lot of other places in the world, like Russia, for instance. So let
me get down to a proper analysis from both a scientific anti journalistic
point of view.
Before I do this, however; I want to say that, in this day of technology,
anything can be a hoax. But elaborate hoaxes cost a lot of money, and
if they are to fool scientists and the like, they also require plenty
of knowledge. Anyway, here's what we did to verify and check it out: I
have known Roger Patterson by correspondence [or about six years. He tells
me--and this flatters me to hell-that he got interested in this business
from reading a book I published in 1961, entitled, "Snowmen-Legend
Come to Life," (Chilton), which was a compendium of all I had
been able to find in published form on this subject up to that date. I,
myself, had been researching it since 1930. During this work, I found
that the British had first become cognizant of the matter in Asia in 1921,
and quite by mistake. However, as I went back in history, I discovered
that just such hairy, primitive, non-tribalized humanlike creatures have
been reported by scholars of various cultures and in literature for centuries
from almost all over the world. Thus, what Roger Patterson anti Bob Gimlin
achieved is not just an isolated incident. It fits a pattern, and precisely.
But what happened next?
Well, these young men had the sense to get their film carefully processed,
under guard, a copy made, and the original locked up in a vault so that
it could not be scratched, stolen or destroyed. Then they went to the
one group of people who really know about "faking" things--especially
like "King Kong," "apemen" and other phony monsters-namely,
Universal Pictures in Hollywood. There they met Dale Sheets, head of the
Documentary Film Department, and top technicians in what is called the
Special Effects Department, who are the men who have actually made such
things for the movies.
They asked the technicians, in effect: "Look at this strip of film,
fellows, and then tell us if you could reproduce that for us."
"No," the experts answered. "Maybe if you allotted a couple
of million bucks, we could try, but we'd have to invent a whole set of
new, artificial muscles; get a gorilla's skin and train an actor to walk
like that. It might be done, but off hand, we'd say it would be nearly
So then Bob and Roger applied to various groups of American scientists
out west. None were seriously interested. There were, however, two Canadians
who had also been looking into this matter in their country, where the
creatures have been named Sasquatches (suss-kwatches). These Canadians,
Mr. John Green, a newspaper publisher of Harrison Lakes, British Columbia,
and Rene Dahinden, originally a Swiss mountaineer but for the past two
decades a government forestry officer for the Canadian government, flew
down to Yakima, Washington, and invited Roger, Bob, and Roger's brother
in-law, Al De Atley, to come up to British Columbia and give a group of
scientists there a showing.
They did, in Vancouver. At this meeting, there were, in addition to Dr.
Ian McTaggart-Cowan, Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of British
Columbia, who is the province's leading zoologist, a dozen or so scientists,
including Don Abbott, an anthropologist with the Provincial Museum in
Most of the scientists admitted in print that, though they had come to
the meeting skeptics, they had left somewhat shaken.
Here's how they stated their reactions in the Vancouver Province next
summed up the more cautious opinions when he said: "The more a thing
deviates from the known, the better the proof of its existence must be."
"Don Abbott spoke for the dozen or more scientists who appeared remarkably
dose to being convinced: "'It is about as hard to believe the film
is faked as it is to admit that such a creature really lives. If there's
a chance to follow up scientifically, my curiosity is built to the point
where I'd want to go along with it." "'Like most scientists,
however, I'm not ready to put my reputation on the line until something
concrete shows up-something like bones or a skull.'
"Frank Beebe, well-known Vancouver naturalist and provincial museum
"I'm not convinced, but I think the film is genuine. And if I were
out in the mountains and I saw a thing like tiffs one, I wouldn't shoot
it. I'd be too afraid of how human it would look under the fur."
"From a scientific standpoint, one of the hardest [acts to go against
is that there is no evidence anywhere in the western hemisphere of primate
(ape, monkey) evolution-and the creature in the film is definitely a primate."
however, was typical of those given by other "experts" who ventured
out of their own specialties to comment. Since I know something about
primates and about geography, I brought this matter to the attention of
Dr. Joseph T. Wraight, who happens to be the Chief Geographer of the U.S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey. His statement appears in detail elsewhere in
this magazine, but may I sum it up here by saying that the distinguished
Dr. Wraight--whose doctorate, by the way, is in Human Ecology--responded
in effect, "Bunk!" to this last objection.
One leading American weekly appeared to have been sufficiently impressed
by the film to fly Roger, Bob and Al, with their film (and out-takes from
same, blown up) to New York to hear their story straight. Armed with the
film and these statements, the three landed in New York and gave me a
buzz. I was with them in two hours. And then the "jazz" began!
Every time we called upon anybody, we were asked for "further confirmation." It was not easy, but we got it, step by step. But after a week of spending
other peoples' money, the boys, as I call them - though they are all married
and fathers-got a really rude, flat and, in my opinion. senseless turn-down.
So that's why the story I am writing is in these pages.
The boys have not asked anybody for a single cent for what they've got.
All they wanted was to be reimbursed for their out of-pocket expenses.
(This has been done.) For the rest, they need sufficient funds to mount
a properly equipped and trained small group to go into this or another
wilderness area for a full year to stage a real hunt for a Bigfoot--captured
alive or on film--or else at least for a skull or other physical evidence.
The most common question asked me about these Bigfoot (of California)
and the similar Sasquatches of Canada is: "Why has nobody ever seen
The answer to this is that they have, and by the hundreds,
and for a hundred years (let alone the earlier sightings by local Indians).
One is even alleged to have been captured on the transCanada railroad's
tracks in 1884; to have been examined by medical men and held in captivity
for some time. It was even mentioned in official dispatches to the Crown
by the (then) Colonial Governor of British Columbia.
Further, I personally
took an extended trip in 1959 to the West, covering just about every area
from Alaska to California and even the Canadian Northwest Territories
interviewing several dozen people who said they had encountered these
creatures. All my findings up to 1961 went into my book, mentioned earlier.
Since then, however, further reports have continued to stream in at a
minimum of once a month.
Meantime, eight groups
that I know of went into the field, apart from Roger Patterson and Bob
Gimlin, and I know that the last have several scores of interviews on
tape with other witnesses. What is more, none other than Dr. Vladimir
Markotic, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Calgary,
Alberta made two trips to the same area and assessed the current reports
two years ago
The next most common
question from non-zoologists that is, is usually: "Why, if there
are so many of these big creatures running around haven't we ever found
a single bone of one?"
My answer is simply to go and ask any game warden, real woodsman or professional
animal collector if he has ever found the dead body or even a bone of
any wild animal--except along roads, of course, or if killed by man. I
never have, in forty years, in five continents! No. Nature takes care
of her own and damned fast too. But there is another point here. These
creatures are apparently not even tribalized. In fact they seem to be
lone hunters or gatherers, forming only small family parties that break
up as soon as the youngsters can get along on their own. Unlike the next
stage up the ladder to people, they do not seem bury their dead. If they
did, we might have stumbled across their ritual burial grounds, even in
caves - though such are rarities - where they are reported to live.
Then, there is another
very prevalent notion: Almost everybody except zoologists-and even many
of them--seems to believe that no big, new animals could still remain
undiscovered. This is a complete fallacy. First, despite all the howls
about our population explosion, more than half the land surface of the
earth has not yet been mapped or for the most part even penetrated. Further,
the world's second bulkiest land animal--Cotton's wide-lipped rhinoceros
- was not found until 1910 and the forest giraffe or okapi until 1911,
and the giant sable antelope until 1929. Then there is the kouprey, the
second largest ox, found in Indochina in 1956, and, of course, the Coelacanth
fish in 1938, thought to have been extinct for some 70,000,000 years.
I might add that two herds, numbering 400 and 300 head respectively, of
forest bison-believed to have existed in not too pure a form in only one
national park in Canada-turned up in 1960 only eighty miles from the new
road going to Great Bear Lake.
[The Komodo dragon, which is the largest known reptile, wasn't discovered
until 1912. The mountain gorilla, an ape species peculiar to Africa, was
a native legend for centuries--just like Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman--but
he wasn't established as a real creature by scientists until 1901.. .editor's
The other most asked
question comes from the zoologists and professional anthropologists. It
is really twofold: (1) How could such a creature be in the North American
continent, because not one single bone or tooth of any true monkey (as
opposed to the South American monkeys, which are quite different) and
much less an ape, has ever found here? This is true, but then the same
people turn right around and state that (2) our Bigfoot, the Oh-mah and
Sasquatches are hominids, meaning on the human branch of our old family
tree. This I find to be completely ridiculous and totally unscientific.
Let me explain.
First, let us leave "monkeys" of all kinds out of it, and concentrate
on what scientists call the pongids (or apes) and the hominids (or man-types).
True, no ape has turned up on this continent; and I'm not surprised because
they are tropical animals and, although there have been mild, temperate
times in the Bering Sea and the Aleutians, they had no reason to go meandering
all the way up there and over here. The hominids, on the other hand, were
represented by several types that lived in cold climates, even up to the
ice front, in the case of the Neanderthalers; what is more, hominids in
the form of what we call humans (i.e. Homo sapiens)--such as our American
Indians, and later the Eskimos--seem to have been able to get here over
the land bridge, or the ice bridge at least, according to all the professional
scientists. So, may I ask, why is it so all-fired impossible for earlier
human types to have done the same? Also, would some anthropologist please
explain how our brown bears, elk, moose and so on got over here from northeast
Asia where they originated?
You can't have it
both ways. Either these things are apes or they're manlike creatures.
Everybody says they look like men (even if dressed in "monkey suits").
Men have gotten here, but the apes have not. Isn't this exactly what the
true scientists have been saying all along?
Bob and Roger feel
that these creatures are definitely human--or at least what scientists
call hominid. They may be the last of their race, or subspecies, or other
species of us "people." And Bob and Roger want them "conserved," or at least given a chance. Above all, they don't want mobs armed with
high-powered, automatic rifles barging in by the thousands and driving
the already overworked and understaffed sheriffs, local and state police
out of their minds.
Another point: The Minister for Recreation of the Canadian Cabinet, Mr.
Kenneth Kiernan, has expressed sincere interest in these efforts. So also
has our Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Stewart Udall. The conservation
angle to all this is serious enough, but there are other angles that we
will not go into at this time.
Now comes the end of the story.
The leading news media--but not the working press, I should stress--treated
this whole thing as an uproarious joke. But one of our leading picture
magazines showed genuine interest and arranged for the films and out-takes
to be shown to representatives of the departments of zoology and anthropology
at the American Museum of Natural History. Once again, as in Canada, the
press wire services were on hand but were informed--in closed session,
I am told--by these experts that the whole thing was nothing but a colossal
hoax. The exact expression used by their spokesperson being, as reported
to me, "not kosher!" And the reason is alleged to have been
simply that such a creature as depicted was impossible.
The use of this term would, in this case, seem to imply that while considered
a hoax, it was short of a fraud; but, if the creature depicted is impossible,
then, for my money, it can only be a man-made thing and thus an outright
fraudulent design. I have failed to receive any suggestions for a third
alternative. This is manifestly a most unsatisfactory situation. Furthermore,
their verdict pronounced upon the pictures was handed down so fast that
no time could have been given for a proper, thorough and truly scientific
examination of the pictures to have been made. Finally, the existence
of such a creature is not impossible.
So, we, --ARGOSY
that is - decided to do something practical. We did. It took time, patience
and real co-operation from several other leading scientists.
This is what we did: First, our publisher, Mr. Harry Steeger, picked up
the tab for the film and pictures, so that Bob and Roger and Al could
get home for a couple of days for Thanksgiving. Next, I and my friend
and partner, Desmond Slattery, drove down to Washington, D.C., where we
set up a showing of the film and out-takes and blowups of all kinds. Then
ARGOSY editor Milt Machlin flew down with the film, and brought his son
Jason along, since he is a budding photographer-and an electronics wizard
as well, in that he ran two tape recorders at different speeds for five
solid hours. We then assembled the following persons:
(1) Mr. N. O. Wood,
Jr., Director of Management Operations for the U.S. Department of Interior,
representing the Honorable Secretary of that Department, Stewart Udall,
on his written request to us.
(2) Dr. A. Joseph
Wraight, Chief Geographer, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (currently of
the U.S. Department of Commerce), also a human ecologist.
(3) Dr. John R. Napier, D.Sc., Director Primate Biology Program, The Smithsonian
Institution. World-known expert on human, ape and 'monkey musculature,
movement, and the anatomy of their hands and feet.
(4) Dr. Vladimir
Markotic, Associate Professor of Archeology at the University of Calgary,
Alberta, Canada. Also a physical anthropologist.
(5) Dr. Allan Bryan, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alberta,
Also present were several of us on "the other side of the fence--let
me call them the journalists or newsboys, or what you want. In addition
to Des Slattery and Milt Machlin and myself, there was present Tom Allen,
currently writer and editor on the editorial staff of The National Geographic
Society. Tom has been a working newsman all his life; for seven years
a feature writer and editor of the Sunday New York Daily News, then managing
editor of Chilton Books of Philadelphia.
During a four-hour
session, the films and stills were shown; examined under high magnification,
challenged, questioned, argued about and studied. The scientists did not
agree on all points. They did not even all see exactly the same details
in the often hard-to-read blowups. But after careful scrutiny over a period
of hours, not one voiced the suspicion that there was a vague possibility
that someone with enormous funds, a strange, undecipherable motivation,
a disregard for life and limb and an enormous knowledge of anatomy, physiology,
photography and human psychology , might have been clever enough to set
up a hoax good enough to fool the top experts in their field.
In addition, in a
separate screening, the film was shown to Dr. Osman Hill, head of the
Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University. Dr. Hill
said, among other things: "All I can say is that if this was a masquerade,
it was extremely well done and effective." He also expressed the
feeling that this evidence was strong enough to induce some group to mount
an expedition to search for further evidence.
So what's the next step? At this point, everything clearly indicates the
need for a major expedition with helicopters, two-way radios and possibly
dogs to set on the trail of the next Bigfoot seen, though I've heard dogs
usually run the other way when they get a whiff of the Bigfoot's spoor.
I can guarantee one thing for myself and ARGOSY Magazine. This story is
definitely to be continued - -
© Ivan T. Sanderson
Argosy Magazine, February 1968
Article courtesy of Tom Cousino;
Color photographs/article courtesy Chris Murphy and Rene Dahinden 1998
THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW
Here are the
views of three men, acknowledged to be top experts in their respective
fields concerning the remarkable creature shown on these pages
Dr. A. Joseph Wraight,
Chief Geographer, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
The presence of large,
hairy human like creatures in North and Central America, often referred
to as Sasquatch, appears very logical when the physiographic history of
the northern part of this continent is considered. The statement often
made that monkeylike creatures were never developed in North America may
easily be discounted, for these creatures are more humanlike than apelike
and they apparently migrated here, rather than representing the product
of indigenous evolution. The recent physiographic history of the polar
edges of North America reveals that the land migration of these creatures
from Asia to America is a distinct and logical possibility.
The compelling reason for this distinct possibility is that a land bridge
between Asia and North America is known to have existed several times
within the last million years, at various intervals during the Pleistocene
or Ice Age.... The land bridges, both on the north and south sides of
the Bering Sea, were admirably suitable for migrations several times during
the Ice Age.
It appears, then,
that these hairy, humanlike creatures, sometimes called Sasquatch, could
easily have migrated to North America at several times during the Ice
Age. This is particularly plausible when it is considered that conditions
were mild in that area when the land bridges existed. These creatures
could have then found conditions along the way similar to their Asian
mountain habitat and could naturally have migrated across the bridges.
Dr. John R. Napier
Director of Primate Biology Program, Smithsonian Institution
"First: I observed
nothing that, on scientific grounds, would point conclusively to a hoax."
"I am satisfied
that the walk of the creature shown in the film was consistent with the
bipedal striding gait of man (except in the action of the feet, which
were not visible). I have two reservations that are both subjective: First,
the slow cadence of the walk and the fluidity of the bodily movements,
particularly the arms, struck me as exaggerated -- almost self-conscious
in comparison with modern man; second, my impression was that the subject
was male, in spite of the contrary evidence of heavy, pendulous breast.
The bodily proportions of the creature, as far as could be seen, appeared
to be within normal limits for man. The appearance of the high crest on
top of the skull is unknown in man, but given a creature as heavily built
as the subject, such a biomechanical adaptation to an exclusively fibrous
raw vegetable diet is not impossible. The presence of this crest, which
occurs only in male non-human primates, such as the gorilla and the orangutan,
tends to strengthen my belief that this creature is a male. Finally, it
might be supposed that a creature with a heavy head, heavy jaw and musculature
and a massive upper body would have a center of gravity placed at a higher
level than in man. The position of the center of gravity modifies the
gait and the easy stride shown in the film is not in harmony with a high
center of gravity. Some of the questions I have raised might be solved
by a scientific frame-by-frame analysis of the gait and body proportions,
and a study of the joint angulations and limb displacements. This should
be done. The opinions I have expressed on this remarkable film are those
of an expert witness, rather than a member of a jury."
Dr. Osman Hill
Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Emory University
portrayed is a primate and clearly hominid rather than pongid. Its erect
attitude in locomotion, the gait, stride and manner of that locomotion,
as well as the relative proportions of pelvic to pectoral limb are all
manifestly human, together with the great development of the mammary glands.
This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that it is indeed a
homo sapiens masquerading as a hairy "giant."
... "All I can say, at this stage, is that if this was a masquerade,
it was extremely well done and effective." "Without tangible
evidence in the form of skeletal parts, a cast of the dentition or similar
physical material, I cannot pronounce beyond this group· However,
the most interesting evidence they have so painstakingly produced should
serve to stimulate the formation of a truly scientific expedition to the
area, with the object of obtaining the required physical data."
Article Courtesy Tom
Color cover courtesy
Chris Murphy, Canada
PGFilm cuts with special permission
Rene Dahinden, 1999
Sanderson, Ivan Terrence. Husband to Alma - (1911-1973)
Sanderson received degrees with honors in geology, zoology and botany and headed six expeditions in all
parts of the world for such groups as the British museum, Cambridge and London Universities, the Linnaean
Societies of London and the Chicago Natural History Museum. He was the author of many books; one, "Animal Treasures" was a Book Of The Month selection in 1937. Others include “The Hairy Primitives of Ancient Europe” 1967, "Caribbean Treasure," "Animals Nobody Knows," "Living treasure," "Animal Tales," "How to Know
American Mammals, " "The Monkey Kingdom," and "Living Mammals of the World.” The Abominable Snowmen, Legend
Come to Life” written in 1961 and countless
articles for various publications and Argosy Magazine where
he was ‘science editor.'
to Bigfoot Encounters Main page
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
to Bigfoot Encounters "What's New" page
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 at www.bigfootencounters.com