Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

In October of 1955, Mr. William Roe, who had spent much of his life hunting wild animals and observing their habits, encountered a wildman (Green 1978, pp. 53–56). The incident took place near a little town called Tete Jaune Cache in British Columbia. One day, said Roe in a sworn statement, he climbed up Mica Mountain to an old deserted mine and saw, at a distance of about 75 yards, what he first took to be a bear. When the creature stepped out into a clearing, Roe realized that it was something different: “My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide, and probably weighing somewhere near three hundred pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was female. And yet, its torso was not curved like a female’s. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man’s arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man’s, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet” (Green 1978, pp. 53–55).

“It came to the edge of the bush I was hiding in, within twenty feet of me, and squatted down on its haunches,” said Roe. “Reaching out its hands it pulled the branches of bushes toward it and stripped the leaves with its teeth. Its lips curled flexibly around the leaves as it ate. I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even. . . . The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of its face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of this hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human’s ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear’s. And its neck also was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man’s I had ever seen.”

After a few minutes the creature became aware of Roe’s presence in the bushes and departed. It was not exactly afraid but was apparently unwilling to have contact with a human being (Green 1978, p. 55).

In 1967, in the Bluff Creek region of Northern California, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin managed to shoot a short color film of a female Sasquatch. They also made casts of her footprints. These prints, which were 14 inches long, were 5.5 inches wide at the ball and 4 inches wide at the heel (Green 1978, p. 118).

Several opinions have been expressed about the film. While some authorities have said it is an outright fake, others have said they think it provides good evidence in favor of the reality of the Sasquatch. Mixed opinions have also been put forward. Dr. D. W. Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human walking, studied the film and had this to say: “My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever fake cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours” (Napier 1973, p. 220).

From his study of the film, Grieve estimated the length of the Sasquatch’s foot to be 13.3 inches, which is consistent with the length of 14 inches reported for the footprints. John R. Napier (1973), however, believed that a 14-inch foot length was not consistent with the estimated body height of 6 feet 5 inches. In his computations, Napier, a respected British anatomist, used the ratio of foot length to body height in modern humans. He did not, however, explain why the physical proportions of the Sasquatch must be the same as those of modern humans.