The "Truth" about the Bigfoot Legend

Author(s): Linda Milligan

Source: Western Folklore, Vol. 49, No. 1, Contemporary Legends in Emergence, (Jan., 1990),
pp. 83-98
Published by: Western States Folklore Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1499483
Accessed: 29/06/2008 16:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wsfs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org

The
the

about

"Truth"

Bigfoot

Legend
LINDA

MILLIGAN

The ambiguity inherent in belief legends makes it all but impossible for the folklorist to presume to know the "truth" about Bigfoot.
Such assertions are likely to be at the root subjective, and they draw
folklorists into the legend debate, a process they would do better to
observe than to participate in. Observations of the debate process
within culture can reveal a great deal about the Bigfoot legend. One
can better understand how emergent beliefs become legend in a contemporary context and how traditional beliefs withstand challenges
even in a dynamic, information-filled setting.
The debate within culture is occurring on two levels: in the published writings of Bigfoot researchers and in the memorates and conjectures of ordinary people who are especially interested in Bigfoot.
The second part of this paper briefly describes the debate about Bigfoot's nature as reflected in the popular press. The third part examines the extent to which the published debate has influenced the
thinking of active bearers of the legend in Central Ohio and the
memorates they tell.
In his article "Humanoids and Anomalous Lights: Taxonomic and
Epistemological Problems," David Hufford argues that it is possible
that some reports of Bigfoot may not be legend at all; rather, some
might be reports based on what he terms an "objectively real referent"
that sometimes becomes embedded in a traditional narrative and
sometimes not. Hufford asserts that "large hair-covered bipeds" reported in different parts of the world under a variety of names might
actually exist. Accounts of Bigfoot's size and appearance are quite
similar across the United States and Canada, according to Hufford.
My thanks to Bill Ellis for sharing his material on Bigfoot with me.
WesternFolklore49 (January, 1990):83-98

83

84

WESTERN FOLKLORE

His fieldwork demonstrates that this consistency cannot always be

explained through tradition since many of his informants were unaware of traditional accounts elsewhere and even were ignorant of the
various names given the creature. In many instances, the accounts he
collected neither alluded to traditional materials nor were told with
these materials' characteristic elaboration. Rather, he writes, they resembled "simple facts accurately reported."
Hufford argues then that it is plausible that Bigfoot exists. Distribution of the reports across the North American continent and in
other parts of the world may indicate widespread observation of the
creature. It is also plausible, he points out, that the creature is the
subject of a tradition that is far more widespread and far more conservative than folklorists recognize. In any case, Hufford warns folklorists not to explain the accounts purely in psychological terms. Such
an assumption might prove to be, in his words, "the same kind of
embarrassing error" that led 18th century astronomers, unaware of
meteorites, to discount reports by farmers who observed hot boulders
falling into their fields (Hufford 1977, 237-239).
The "truth" then about whether or not Bigfoot exists is as yet
disputable. Folklorists can shed some light on the subject. Hufford's
objective analysis demonstrates the plausibility for Bigfoot's existence.
But demonstrating plausibility and proving that it is so are very different. Folklorists cannot provide the kind of evidence necessary to
prove the existence of Bigfoot (or other entities whose existence is
disputed) to those who are not already convinced. We collect, investigate, and analyze texts, not Bigfoot carcasses, crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft, or bottle ghosts. While folklorists can discern some
truths from these texts, the absolute truth about the core belief is no
shining pearl that we can make emerge. That pearl remains obscure.
Truth in most instances becomes a matter of faith not fact.
According to Linda Degh and Andrew Vazsonyi, the essence of
belief legend is this very dispute over a truth which remains veiled.
"'Real' folk legend," according to Degh and Vazsonyi must "produce
a reason and feasibility to profess faith, to take a stand for or against
belief" (1973, 7). Belief legend then is a dispute about belief.
Folklorists who take a position for or against belief are entering this
dispute and therefore participating in the legend process. When a
legend is socially dysfunctional, that may seem the right thing to do.
But I think it is questionable whether folklorists' assertions, however
reasonable they may seem, can effectively resolve the dispute without

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE BIGFOOT LEGEND

85

being grounded in indisputable evidence. Such objective proof is seldom available, as Degh and Vazsonyi point out, "because of the nature of legend situations" (1973, 13). And there is a danger in folklorists mistaking what they themselves believe to be true as "fact."
They may assume, for example, that an informant's narrative has no
basis in reality when in fact it does. According to Hufford, such assumptions, untested, are tantamount to "imposing on us a set of
blinders" (1977, 234). The term "blinders" implies an inability to accurately observe, a limitation that could seriously undermine our
work.
The "truth" about Bigfoot for the time being is no more available
to folklorists than to anyone else. But because our fieldwork puts us
into direct contact with nonbelievers as well as believers, it is difficult
to sit on the sidelines watching the two groups pelt each other. We
sometimes are drawn in, and in such a polarized environment risk
being misinterpreted: those who believe may feel that not to believe as
they do is to disbelieve. Standing there in the middle of the ruckus, we
might get pelted ourselves, and shout to each other, "How do I handle
this?!" My answer is to hold your ground and duck when necessary.
In the middle of the dispute, not on one or the other side or
outside it all together, is the best place to be to observe the legend
process. From this vantage point one might not learn the "truth"
about Bigfoot, but one might learn quite a bit about the Bigfoot
legend.
If folklorists are to maintain this middle ground, they must resist
the temptation to try to resolve the ambiguity inherent in the belief
legend with explanations that don't take into account all the evidence.
Furthermore, folklorists should recognize that the evidence is ambiguous. If it were not-if it were clear and indisputable-there would be
no legend.
The evidence is ambiguous because it is difficult to verify and because it is often accompanied by negative evidence. In the case of
Bigfoot the positive evidence is usually the personal testimonies of
witnesses. These are often accompanied by reports of Bigfoot's
unique scream and odor, by photographs and plaster casts of footprints, by hair and feces samples. There is negative evidence as well.
If all the personal testimonies are true, and Bigfoot inhabits all of
North America, how could this creature have eluded forest rangers,
zoologists, and Bigfoot hunters for all of these years? And why have
no carcasses or bones been found?

86

WESTERN FOLKLORE

The sum of the evidence for and against the creature's existence
taken together defies easy answers. Explanations that all but ignore
part of the evidence may require a stretch of the imagination as great
or greater than anything collected in the field, as in the conclusion of
the article "Abominable Snowman or Bigfoot: A Psychoanalytic
Search for the Origin of Yeti and Sasquatch Tales" by Manfred F. R.
Kets de Vries:
In the foregoing analysis we have suggested that the sightings of
sasquatch and yeti are most likely of a delusionary, illusionary and
hallucinatorynature and, as such, the projectionsof conflictingimages
of people living in isolated environments under conditions of severe
stress. The actual presence of bears and apes probablyplayed a major
role in the creation of these creatures considering the process of condensation and distortion operating in dreams, delusions, and hallucinations. Manyritualsand tales dealing with apes and bears support this
contention. We have emphasized the great similaritiesin mental processes among children and primitiveman and have used this to explain
these institutionalizedanimal-likephobias.We do, however,also realize
that many of the more recent sightings of these creatures(especiallyin
the case of sasquatch),have been made by 'modern' man. We suggest,
that in these instances, conditions of severe stress mobilized defenses
and subsequentlymore primitivepsychologicalprocessesbecame operational.Sometimesthe behaviorof primitiveand modern man seems to
be not far apart.
One aspectof the yeti and sasquatchthat remainsdifficultto explain,
is the extraordinarilylarge number of sighted footprints. The geographicaldistributionof the tracks and the difficulty in making these
trackscannot easily be ignored. Apart from a real hoax, one hypothesis
about this phenomenon could be that some individuals,in an attemptto
master their fears of such strange creatures, are engaged in a total
identificationprocess. Imitation and impersonation becomes a consequence. It may explain the presence of these gigantic footprints (de
Vries 1982, 260).
One could accuse de Vries of legend making. In place of Bigfoot he
has substituted a contemporary "wild man"; that is, a human who
devises a costume, not to hoax but to totally assume the identity of
Bigfoot. Such psychological aberrations do occur. Stan Gordon, Director of the Pennsylvania Association for the Study of the Unexplained and psychiatrist Berthold Eric Schwarz investigated a case in
Uniontown, Pennsylvania in 1973 in which a young man was so frightened by Bigfoot-like creatures that he seemed to go through
the process of identification and impersonation described by de Vries.
He became hysterical at the site where he and his young brothers

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE BIGFOOT LEGEND

87

observed a glowing ball of light hovering just above two ape-like creatures. As police, investigators, the brothers and their father searched
the area for evidence hours after the sighting, the young man became
hysterical, then began growling like an animal and tossed his father
and one of the investigators to the ground (Clark and Coleman 1978,
97-103). It should be noted, however, that the young man's animallike behavior was temporary. Such behavior would have to be widespread and far more sustained to account for the footprints found
across the continent. I suspect that if such "wild men" exist in numbers, more evidence for them would exist at least in the form of
contemporary memorates.
The kind of hypothesis put forth by de Vries illuminates nothing.
It merely serves to dismiss evidence that contradicts his argument that
the large, hairy ape-like creatures reported are hallucinations. Although the personal testimonies and footprints are not sufficient to
prove that this elusive creature exists in the mountains, woodlands,
and farmlands of North America, the hallucination hypothesis cannot
be proved either. The evidence is simply too ambiguous. Folklorists
must resist the temptation to resolve this ambiguity by substituting
what could become one folk narrative for another. Boiled down to its
simplest language, what de Vries says to those who claim the experience is, "I don't believe you. You are seeing things." While that is a
legitimate personal response, to legitimize it academically requires
fairly taking into account all the evidence. Because of the ambiguous
nature of the evidence for and against Bigfoot, conclusions drawn
about the nature of the belief are likely to be highly speculative and
nonproductive.
Those who research evidence for Bigfoot are aware of its ambiguity, so they themselves often debate whether the creature actually
exists, where it resides, and what its nature is. Rather than attempt to
resolve this debate, I have chosen instead to focus on the Bigfoot
debate itself, in an effort to increase our understanding of the legend
process. The essence of the legend is debate, so if we see how proponents of the active Bigfoot legend conduct themselves, we can see how
the legend changes, how speculation enters into the process, and how
(if at all) it affects memorates-or how people actually experience
Bigfoot. This, I believe is the great opportunity that the study of
contemporary legends offers folklorists.
According to David Hufford, Bigfoot-like creatures were first reported in the West in 1921 when Lt.-Col. Howard Bury, following a
failed attempt to climb to the top of Mt. Everest, described to report-

88

WESTERN FOLKLORE

ers a large, upright animal seen in the Himalayas by some members of

his party. One reporter researched Bury's story and discovered further accounts among people who lived in the region of a fur covered,
man-like animal (Hufford 1977, 235). Ivan T. Sanderson writes that
the term adopted by the media for the creature, "abominable snowman" was born from a misinterpretation of the term the locals gave to
the creature (Sanderson 1961, 10-11). Before this date there had
been scattered newspaper accounts of hair-covered, human-like monsters or "wild men" in America as well as stories of similar creatures
among some North American Indians. But David Hufford, I believe,
is correct in his assertion that widespread knowledge of such creatures
originated with press accounts of the Himalayan abominable snowman. Janet and Colin Bord report in The Bigfoot Casebookthat there
are only a few North American Bigfoot accounts available for the first
four decades of this century as compared to the number of reports
today. They reason that there may have been as many sightings but
that people were more isolated and did not know to whom to take
these reports (Bord 1982, 31). Whether or not there were as many
sightings, these early accounts of "wild men," "mountain devils," and
"man-apes" likely created fertile soil for Bigfoot stories to thrive once
press accounts of the Himalayan abominable snowman piqued the
public's interest. Today Bigfoot is reported all over the United States
and Canada.
The description of the creature is fairly stable. It is a hairy ape-like
creature who stands between seven and eight feet tall. It is reported
to have a foul odor and a loud scream (Green 1978). Descriptive
details sometimes vary. It is reported by some to have reddish brown
hair and by others to have dark gray hair. Some witnesses claim that
its eyes are red or glowing. The massive size and depth of its footprints attest to its size, but sometimes these footprints reveal five toes
and at other times three toes. Generally the creature is described as
being reclusive and not a danger to humans, but sometimes it is reported to have invaded human territory or behaved quite aggressively
(Bord 1982). John Green writes in Sasquatch:The Apes Among Us that
the Himalayan abominable snowman is actually a yeti, which is smaller
and less erect that the North American sasquatch or Bigfoot.
Bigfoot researchers disagree about the sasquatch's and yeti's habitat. Frank Poirier, Professor of Anthropology at The Ohio State University, doubts that the creature exists in Ohio or North America but

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE BIGFOOT LEGEND

89

believes there is a possibility that it exists in Asia, where it was first

reported. Poirier and others believe Bigfoot could be related to Giantopithecus, a very large ape that existed more than 100,000 years
ago (T. C. Brown 1988). John Green, on the other hand, writes that
there is far more evidence for the North American Bigfoot that is
more convincing than what he terms the "second-rate evidence" available for the Himalayan yeti (Green 1978, 132). Bigfoot hunter Bob
Gardiner, who formed the North American Sasquatch Research
Team in Columbus, Ohio in 1974 thinks the North American accounts quite plausible and has organized expeditions in Ohio to seek
the creature out. Gardiner has no intentions of shooting the creature
because he believes Bigfoot is more human than animal. John Green
notes that Ohio has been "quite productive for reports compared to
other areas" (T. C. Brown 1988). Kenneth Wylie takes a very different
view in Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiryinto a Phenomenon.Wylie writes that
there simply is not enough evidence to support Bigfoot's existence
anywhere except in the imaginations of people who long for something left in nature that has not yet been subdued or classified. He
concludes that "when we seek the great, hairy beast, a new quest is
possible, something unknown still survives .. ." (Wylie 1980, 230).
Up until the early 1970's the debate about Bigfoot's nature centered on whether or not it was an ancient ape, a human-like creature,
or an ape-man. But as early as 1968 accounts emerged linking Bigfoot
to UFOs. Janet and Colin Bord report that witnesses in Salem, Ohio
saw "a large, shadowy, man-like creatures," "a large cat-like creature,"
and a UFO near their home (Bord 1982, 92). In the 1970's similar
reports proliferated particularly in Pennsylvania.
Stan Gordon, Director of the Pennsylvania Association for the
study of the Unexplained writes that in 1973 Pennsylvania experienced its largest wave of Bigfoot sightings, with over 100 documented
reports involving 250 eyewitnesses. Gordon's group notes that in
many instances UFOs were reported in the same area shortly before
the creature was sighted. The suspected link was confirmed in the
case (briefly described earlier) where a young man, along with his
young brothers, saw two Bigfoot-like creatures standing just below a
hovering UFO. Gordon believes the two phenomena are linked,
although he is not certain how (Gordon 1982, 3).
A new theory about the nature of Bigfoot proposed by Jerome
Clark and Loren Coleman emerged out of this linkage concept. Clark

90

WESTERN FOLKLORE

and Coleman write that Bigfoot, UFOs, psychic phenomena, apparitions, the eastern panther, and poltergeists are all what they term"borderline phenomena" (Clark & Coleman 1978, 19). They write:
Whateverthe source may be, its signalsmust be filtered through human
consciousnessand perception, which shape the manifestationsto conform to certain archetypal forms that are both strange and yet oddly
familiar to us. Strange because they appear supernaturalor extraterrestrial,but familiar because, in a sense, we have createdthem(Clark &
Coleman 1978, 20).
They conclude that these borderline phenomena are not hallucinations but are a kind of "phantasm" that is "generated by a single
paranormal mechanism" and then processed through the human
mind. What the generating mechanism is is unknown. But Clark and
Coleman write that the archetypal images produced by this process,
Bigfoot, UFOs, and others, indirectly speak to us about ourselves.
This dialogue may ultimately alter our perception of the universe
(Clark & Coleman 1978, 195-207).
Clark and Coleman's theory in part is an effort to explain phenomena that to them make no sense. They argue that common sense
dictates that the large numbers of sane people who report these "manifestations" could not all be seeing things. Yet they ask, ".. . why if
they are real, are there no bodies, no bones, no live specimens locked
securely in zoos and laboratories? Why only certain kinds of physical
evidence, invariably of a somewhat ambiguous nature-footprints,
strands of hair or fur, possible feces samples, and not others?" (Clark
& Coleman 1978, 21-22).
Clark and Coleman's theory met with skepticism among some Bigfoot investigators. John Green retorts:
... I have no inclination whatever to consider U.F.O.'s as part of the
explanationfor anythingon Earth.To people who are convincedof the
reality of space craft and space visitors, I suppose it is natural to think
of them as a possibleanswerto the problemof something seen on Earth
that isn't supposed to be here.
The same goes, I presume, for people who are convinced that there
are other forms of reality on Earth with which we normally have no
contact. They may well find it entirely satisfactoryto assume that a
creature that man can see but hasn'tbeen able to catch or killjust steps
across some borderline that takes it beyond the contact of man's sight,
touch and hearing. Having no way of understanding the universe, or
the existence of life, or so many other things that do appear real to me,
I am certainly not about to argue that reality contains only the things

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE BIGFOOT LEGEND

91

that register on my five senses. But with the sasquatchI see no need to
fall back on either extra-terrestrialor extra-sensoryexplanations.Considering the consistentresistanceour society maintainsto any exposure
to informationon the subject,our failure to have stumbledon proof of
their existence, while considerablyagainstthe odds, doesn't seem to me
to require unearthly explanation (Green 1978, 257).
Clark now disavows much of what he speculated in Creaturesof the
OuterEdge, saying to me in a telephone conversation that while there
is a tendency to want to link things together, there has not been
enough evidence to support those links. He is still intrigued by the
case of the young man who observed the Bigfoot-like creatures beneath the UFO. But Clark uses the word "mixology" to describe the
error he committed in his book. The term was coined by Richard Hall,
who admonishes "linkologists":
If persons inexperienced in scientific methods would be "ufologists,"
they must learn not to assume a priori that a UFOlink exists, with
[cattle] mutilations, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle or anything else.
They must learn to be criticalof their own assumptions,not merely cite
selective data in an attempt to support what they already believe or
think may be true. What you think may be true, after careful consideration of data, is a hypothesis. It is a starting point for investigation,
not a scientificconclusion (Hall 1985, 6).
The debate among investigators over the Bigfoot-UFO link illustrates the difficulty proponents of Bigfoot have had coping with the
ambiguity of the evidence. Clark and Coleman quote Dr. J. Allen
Hynek as describing the evidence as an "embarrassment of riches."
They continue, "the physical evidence is always just enough to suggest
that the reported manifestation was not purely hallucinatory; it is
never enough to prove that it was objectively real" (Clark & Coleman
1978, 195-196). The link debate also shows how proponents engage
in group self-criticism. And it offers the folklorist an opportunity to
investigate the extent to which these conjectures, accounts, theories,
and criticism of theories in print influence the texts collected in the
field.
Bigfoot lore is usually communicated in memorates. But these
memorates are only one part of a communication process that may
include the sharing of photographs, drawings, plaster casts, hair samples, beliefs, and speculation. Such sharing took place at the home of
Reverend B., who lives in a small, rural community about 30 miles

92

WESTERN FOLKLORE

northwest of Columbus where he is the pastor of a small, nondenominational church, a free-lance newspaper reporter, and a Bigfoot hunter. Using his scrapbook of photographs and drawings to
guide the conversation, Reverend B. recounted the cases he investigated of surprise encounters between Bigfoot and humans.
He told me about a small group of game hunters who when they
spotted the creature in the woods were so frightened that they backed
out of the woods with their rifles pointed and cocked in shooting
position. One of these brave coon hunters made the mistake of describing the event to the Reverend, who said to me that he likes "to
torment" the fellow "that he probably backed all the way home."
Reverend B. also told me about a birthday party surprise encounter
with Bigfoot. Evidently a family gathering took place to celebrate the
birthday of an East Liberty, Ohio man. His family pooled their resources to buy him an easy chair. The evening of the party the man's
mother asked him to recline in the chair that had been placed in front
of a picture window so that she might take a photograph of him
enjoying his new gift. The man leaned back in the chair with his feet
up as his mother focused the camera. When she looked through the
viewfinder she saw a pair of eyes looking through the picture window
behind her son. She snapped the camera, and although the glare
from the glass distorted the photo of Bigfoot, according to Reverend
B., it is the best picture of the creature he has collected. Family members have told the Reverend that since then, the creature has visited
their home many times: now the family "almost feel as if it's a pet."
These two memorates illustrate the surprise encounter motif everpresent in Bigfoot accounts. No one, it seems, ever successfully tracks
Bigfoot. Those who encounter the creature seem always to be taken
by surprise. The humor in these memorates does more than poke fun
at the fearless coon hunter and those who would think of Bigfoot as
their family pet; it emphasizes that from the Reverend's point of view
Bigfoot need not be feared.
During my conversation with the Reverend, these memorates were
interspersed with discussions of photographs of footprints and a composite drawing of the creature he made based on the eyewitness reports he collected. He showed me a sample of Bigfoot hair. He described to me what he has learned about the creature's habits after
years of tracking it. But he would always go back to the memorates;
more than anything, they are the evidence. And the sheer numbers

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE BIGFOOT LEGEND

93

Reverend B. has collected from rural and small town people that he
trusts makes that evidence for him indisputable. From these memorates, both a physical and psychological portrait of the creature
emerges. The following memorates communicate Bigfoot's size,
smell, vocal capacity, and fear.
A farmer in the vicinity heard noises outside his home around
eleven in the evening. Suspecting that it was the same culprit who had
recently siphoned gas from his tank coming back for more, he slipped
quietly out of his back door hoping to catch the thief in the act.
Instead, he saw Bigfoot standing in his driveway, only about 50 feet
from where the farmer stood, lighted from behind by the security
lamp on the barn. The farmer's Siberian Husky was on a chain that
could reach halfway between the farmer and the creature. Bigfoot
was lunging at the dog as if to tease it. Eventually the farmer thought
to turn on his back porch light to get a better look at it. But the light
frightened the creature, who left in such haste that he ran into a
maple tree. The farmer said it shook the whole tree and broke
branches where it hit. The farmer called Reverend B. to the scene,
and they measured the highest branch that was broken off. It measured eight feet one inch from the ground.
The portrait painted here is of a massive creature who has the
courage to tease a chained dog but who runs away in terror at the
sight of a human. The following memorate, narrated by Reverend B.,
also illustrates Bigfoot's terror.
ReverendB.: ... then right out here, uh, they were woken up one night,
and the smell got so strong in the bedroom that it... they were awakened by it. And they went out on the porch then to see if they could see
anything. They went out on the front porch, a man and his wife, see if
they could see anything. And there was a storm coming up. And some
lightning flashes, you know, and all of that. And pretty soon it got a
little bit closer. And pretty soon there was a big flash of lightning, you
know, and a big clap of thunder. And that thing threw the biggest pitch
you could imagine back there in that woods. There'sjust one smallfield
between the woods and their house. Said, "It'ssounding like he's tearing the whole woods up."
Linda:Was he afraid of the thunder and lightning?
ReverendB.: Sounds like it. Sounds like it. And I've got that kind of a
story, you know, a time or two about, uh, harsh noises seem to frighten
them. He said he just thrashed around back there in those bushes and
screamed at that thunder and lightning like you couldn't believe.

WESTERN FOLKLORE

94

Through recounting memorates collected from witnesses, Reverend B. paints a multi-dimensional portrait of Bigfoot that communicates far more than the hair samples or photographs of footprints. He
is convinced of the creature's existence and wastes little time in debating that point. Instead he devotes his effort at trying to understand
its nature. For the Reverend, the memorates provide much of the
empirical data that he draws upon. Retelling these memorates to others through face to face contact or in the news accounts he writes for
the local paper, he communicates what he has learned.
Reverend B. was only one member of a loose network of people
engaged in Bigfoot research, but he was considered to have the most
expertise. Many of the others were involved in UFO research as well.
In fact, some of them became involved in Bigfoot research only because they believed that a link exists between Bigfoot and UFOs.
While the group argued for the existence of Bigfoot with memorates, photographs, and hair samples to outsiders like myself, I observed evidence of a more subtle, secondary debate over the nature of
Bigfoot inside the group. In one instance, network members went so
far as to debunk the claim of a fellow member. One of my informants
told me that a woman who shares the group's interest in Bigfoot set
up a feeding station in her backyard. According to a Dayton, Ohio,
newspaper, the woman says she feeds dog food and deer meat to a
group of Bigfeet that frequent the station (Balz 1985). John and
Vicki, officers of a UFO group in a small, Central Ohio city, debunked
her story. The context was a caution to me to be skeptical of people
who claim multiple sightings of unusual phenomena:
John: ... It's like the little boy who cried wolf. After a while you can't
believe anything they say. Uh, there's a lady that we've had some brief
contact with, uh, through TEROCO. She firmly believes that she has
Bigfoot in her backyard.
Vicki:She has feeding stations, and she has Bigfoot "ka ka" [feces] in
little zip lock bags that she has stored in her freezer next to her hamburger. So that if you want to analyze it ...
Linda:Well, has it been analyzed?
John:Yes, well, I didn't have to analyzeit. I know what it is. I've seen it
before because I was raised in the country. It's raccoon "kaka."[laughter]But she has all these little zip lock bags. And she's preserving this
raccoon "kaka" for, forever.

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE BIGFOOT LEGEND

95

Vicki:And she firmlybelieves though, that she has had Bigfoot coming
to her house to this feeding station that she has set up for somewhat,
fifteen years.
John: But they've never taken a picture of it. Now if Bigfoot is coming
there, and they sit up night after night after night waiting for Bigfoot
to come, it's kinda like kids who used to wait up for Santa. You'd wait
there for Santa Claus, and you always fall asleep. Santa Claus always
eats the damn cookies and drinks that milk. [laughter]And you never
know what happens to him, but you know he had that cookies and milk
cause it's gone.
The group did not make a practice of debunking one another. In
fact, when pressed further Vicki recanted her opinion that there was
nothing to the woman's claim, allowing for its possibility. Nonetheless,
a debate over the nature and activity of Bigfoot was apparent.
This dispute also emerged at a meeting of the Extraterrestrial Researchers of Columbus, Ohio (TEROCO), the network's core. A participant, Don, argued that Bigfoot and UFOs are linked essentially
because both had been sighted in an area of Ohio the group was
currently investigating. Additionally, there had been sudden and unexplained power failures and reports of people behaving strangely in
the woods. Therefore, Don concluded, all this activity is linked; and
UFOs are responsible for it. Participants at this meeting pointed out
that Bigfoot was far more intelligent than an ordinary animal and had
psychic abilities. Don, in fact, suggested that Bigfoot hunter, Bob
Gardiner, had failed to find the creature because he persists in hunting it as if it were only an animal.
But none of the group reported any memorates to support their
contention that Bigfoot is an alien creature. In fact, memorates told
by TEROCO member Peggy appear to contradict this notion. During
an interview in her home Peggy described to me what happened the
night her brother and several of his friends encountered Bigfoot.
Peggy:Uh, he and his wife, well, was just his girlfriend then, and a
bunch of kids from school had went out to this place, that's probably
about ten miles from here maybe fifteen. And uh, they had the car
parked there, and they kept hearing weird noises. And they were out of
the car, and then they heard something coming up out of the water.
And, of course, they all ran for the car. Whatever it was really stunk
because Bigfoot's got a special smell. And uh, anyway they got to the
car, and he had a big Oldsmobile, a 98 I think it was. And when he
startedto take off, uh, Bigfoot grabbedthe backof his bumper. And his

96

WESTERN FOLKLORE
car ... he must have lifted the back end up because the car was in gear,
and it was spinning and going no where. And uh, he'd, uh, Bigfoot had
torn the license plate off the car.
Linda:Did he, did he see what....
Peggy:Yeah, in the mirrorhe could see him. You know, it was real dark.
But he could see the outline of something big and hairy. And uh, of
course, everybody was screaming, you know, to get out of there. And
uh, oh Chris has just got so many stories. And uh, the sheriff the next
day or so, uh, after that . . . someone had turned in the license plate.

They found it out there. With uh, bigfoot had pulled the big bumper,
which, you know, it would take a lot of pressure to, uh, pull that
bumper away from the car like that. But Bigfoot did it.
Peggy chose to emphasize Bigfoot's foul smell and his great
strength. She also strongly implied that her brother and his friends
were in danger and were fortunate to have escaped with only a missing bumper. Later in the interview, however, Peggy said she believed
Bigfoot to be harmless, more intelligent than regular animals, and
mentally communicating with extraterrestrial beings whose spacecraft
are regularly observed in her community. She told no memorate to
support this second view of Bigfoot, but it contrasts sharply with the
Bigfoot in the memorate that she did tell, in which the creature is
described as a kind of monster, reminiscent of King Kong, lurking
near isolated roads in the dark night ready to spring upon humans.
These two views of Bigfoot are contradictory and never reconciled. I
believe they reflect the tension that exists between the established
legend and a new form of the legend that may be emerging. This
tension is more obvious in the comments of Reverend B., who was
more conscious than Peggy that Bigfoot the animal is hard to reconcile with Bigfoot the alien.
I asked Reverend B. why people are connecting the two:
ReverendB.: Well, one thing you can'tdeny is the fact that, uh, much of
the time the sightings of Bigfoot is accompanied by the sightings of
UFOs. You can't deny that.
Linda:Have you had UFO sightings around here that correspond with
it?

ReverendB.: Yes, uh huh. And uh, had two very excellent UFO sightings here in the last three and a half years, you know, since we started,
uh, trying to learn what we can find out. And uh, over the same area.
So you can't deny that, you know, that there isn't a possibilitythere.
Although you can't place this real, this thing has a real foul odor to it.

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE BIGFOOT LEGEND

97

It smells bad, worse than a skunk, you know. And uh, you can oftentimes smell it for quite a distance. Now maybe, maybe not only does it
smell bad, but maybe it has some of the capabilitiesof a skunk too, you
know, being able to.... Maybethis is a protectivedevice or a warning
device of some kind too. But it smells, uh, real bad. And you cannot
connect that with something that might be as highly scientificas a UFO,
you know. Or the fact that uh, uh, it seems like it eats field mice and
moles, rabbits,chickens, you know.
Somethingso big? Couldn'tit eat something bigger like a cow
Stephanie:
or a pig?
ReverendB.: I suppose, but we don't run into that, not yet. Uh, eats a lot
of fruit and berriesand various forms, you know, of plant life and that
kind of thing. And we find evidence of that. And that's not . . . you
know when I think of somebody, uh, a creature out of a UFO, you
think, uh, a person reallythat would, uh, be advancedmaybefrom what
we are, but this thing is just....
Linda: an animal.

ReverendB.: It acts animal. Its habits are animal.

For now the older, more established form of the Bigfoot legend
coexists with an emergent belief. But they are not coequals since the
emergent belief has not yet established itself in Central Ohio memorates. The lack of supporting memorates connecting Bigfoot with
UFOs also indicates that the group did not derive this belief from
available accounts of the creature in Central Ohio; the source is elsewhere. Stan Gordon is the major proponent of the link theory; he
publishes and speaks on the topic, and conducts most of his investigations in Ohio's neighboring state, Pennsylvania. Clearly the group
was influenced by Gordon and others who have written on the topic.
Members of the network were not influenced equally however.
Even in this group, which shares many beliefs, subtle differences in
systems of belief foster speculation and debate. Reverend B., although willing to entertain the theory, was less willing to adopt it than
Peggy, Don, and some others. Don and Peggy attempt to reinterpret
the legend while Reverend B. resists the new interpretation.
It is too soon to tell whether or not the emergent belief will become
established legend. The lack of supporting memorates in Central
Ohio suggests a resistance to change. The change from Bigfoot the
animal to Bigfoot the alien could not simply be described as dynamic.
Such a change would be radical and would invalidate much of what
has become traditionally associated with the creature. Such a radical

98

WESTERN FOLKLORE

alteration of traditional belief would require compelling new firstand second-hand accounts as supporting evidence.
The "truth" about the Bigfoot legend reveals little about Bigfoot
but considerably more about the legend process. Published theories
can ignite debate, but speculative debate is not sufficient by itself to
dramatically alter a legend. The traditional belief that Bigfoot is a
terrestrial animal resists being invalidated. It would take a large number of compelling memorates to do so. Since there are none reported
in Central Ohio linking Bigfoot to UFOs, one could argue either that
people who provide accounts simply are not experiencing a Bigfoot/
UFO connection, or that people's interpretations of their experience
are so tradition bound that they cannot perceive a link even if it exists.
In either case, without a large number of memorates linking Bigfoot
and UFOs, the traditional belief that Bigfoot is an elusive, terrestrial
animal is likely to win the debate; and the belief in a Bigfoot/UFO
connection will eventually fade before ever having become a legend.