Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Leroy Blevins]

I like to add.
When it come to copyright laws you only have the copyright to what is marked on the film and what is marked on their files.
The film called American Bigfoot 11-7-68 is not even on file and there is no copyright on this film.
So you see if someone shows her film that is marked Big foot Bluff Creek Calf 1967 then they would have to pay her money to show it.
However if someone show the film marked American Bigfoot 11-7-68 then they don't have to pay her nothing for no one has the right to this film. Anyone can show it.
Even if she try to take you to court she will have to prove she owns the right to a film called American Bigfoot 11-7-68 and she can do it all she can do is show she owns the copyright to a film called Big foot Bluff Creek 1967 and this is the film they have on file.
In other words she would have to prove that the Big Foot Bluff Creek Calf 1967 film is the same film called American Bigfoot 11-7-68 and the only way she can do this is by showing the original film and that film is long gone and was left with ANE.
So there is no way she can prove the two films are the same film.

[Leroy Blevins]

The SFS stand for Science Fiction Subject.
They have to mark the film by it's category and the category they marked the film as a Science Fiction Subject.

[OntarioSquatch]

Also, Dr. Ketchum's paper passed peer review.

[Leroy Blevins]

Now I like to explain the marking at the end of the PG film.

767R 11-7-68 SFS/American Bigfoot

767R - is the register number
11-7-68 - is the date the film was made
SFS - stand for Science Fiction Subject
American Bigfoot- is the name of the film

[I am Bigfoot]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Also, Dr. Ketchum's paper passed peer review.

Evidence?

[OntarioSquatch]

It was announced by Robert Linday just hours ago. He has contacts with people who have been involved in her study, but I guess we'll deal with the paper when it's actually published...

[I am Bigfoot]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It was announced by Robert Linday just hours ago. He has contacts with people who have been involved in her study, but I guess we'll deal with the paper when it's actually published...

So more secret knowledge?
Also, I'd like to point out that passing peer review doesn' mean a whole lot in and of itself
Leroy:

Do you know who decides the categories? How did this film get the SFS category?

[Vortigern99]

Leroy Blevins, no one can take you seriously because you see patently ridiculous imagery like giant horses and dudes with hats floating fifteen feet off the ground in still frames of dark foliage that no one but you can see.

You are delusional at best and scary insane at worst. What will it take to convince you that you're seeing amorphous natural shapes that your brain, in its very human tendency to ascribe patterns to random data, is collating into images that you think make sense? Guys on horseback in dense forest, yards off the ground and quite a bit larger than normal. But they don't make sense. They aren't what you think they are. Gigantic horses are not lurking in the woods behind Patty, Leroy. They just aren't.

Plus which, your grammar and spelling are atrocious. "I seen" is not a proper English construction. "I like to say" is supposed to be in the conditional tense, IE "I would like to say". Grab a copy of Strunk and White for the love of conjugation. It's hard to read your posts because the reader has to employ a hick translator. It's a difficult task for us, Leroy. It doesn't make your posts fun or educational or enlightening to read. I have to burn calories reading your posts from all the eye-rolling that goes on.

Also, Leroy, here's a %^&$#@*( news flash: You didn't see a bigfoot. Either you hallucinated your giant furry hippie or you saw a real guy wearing a suit. Or you're lying. Or it was a bear and you've totally misidentified it. How do I know? Bigfoot doesn't exist.

So just stop it. Your posts are nonsensical ramblings. They're as amusing as a train wreck and make as much sense.

ETA: At least OntarioSasquatch has an excuse. He's like 11.

[I am Bigfoot]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

ETA: At least OntarioSasquatch has an excuse. He's like 11.

It's not much of an excuse when one of the people responsible for the existence of the PGF says bigfoot doesn't exist and the story around it is physically impossible. It's like these kids I went to high school with who thought Criss Angel (sp?) was actually magic.

[jimfish]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

The SFS stand for Science Fiction Subject.
They have to mark the film by it's category and the category they marked the film as a Science Fiction Subject.

I was under the impression that "SFS" referred to "Sound Film Strip", and would mean the film in question had a soundtrack printed directly onto it. I would find it odd for a film processing lab to label the strips they develop by genre (why would they care? They only print them), and if it wasn't a lab technician who wrote on the film, why Patterson et al would do the same.

Maybe the video you linked to may illuminate the matter, but since it's blocked by NatGeo in my region, I'm unable to watch it. So my question is, Leroy, are you sure it's "Science Fiction Subject"?

[LTC8K6]

The same Robert Lindsay that's been posting junk from Ketchum all along?

That Robert Lindsay? We are supposed to believe him?

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2...-july-11-2012/

[Leroy Blevins]

Vortigern99-
I don't know what you are talking about. I have never said I see horse in the back ground or in the air. If you are talking about those images someone post on page 222 that was not from my research. I never made these claims that is from someone else from youtube. He is the one that finds all these animal images in the film and horses and other things he claim he see in the film so get your story straight and don't blame me for someone else research.
As for the Bigfoot I seen it was not a hippie and it's not a bear and it's not a man in a suit and I don't lie so please don't call me a liar for I don't believe in lies and I tell my kids to never lie so again Please don't call me a liar. I was only 20 to 25ft away from it and I know what I have seen. You was not there so you can not say nothing about what I have seen.Plus I also have 2 eyewitness that was there with me and they seen the same thing.
So again if you don't believe me that is ok with me but I will never lie about anything.


jimfish-
The sound on the film was added in 1968. The original film did not have sound on it. There was a lot of scenes and sound added to the film when Ron Olson remade the film in 1968 for Patterson and Green.Ron Olson even added more color to the film and more details to the film.
As told by Ron Olson
"The film was not that good the color was off and it was not that long. The film subject did not show that much detail so I made the film better and changed some of the color and added more details to the subject in the film."

The reason why they marked the film as a Science Fiction Subject is as you know there was never no proof that Bigfoot was real so they had to mark it down as a Science Fiction Subject. It's like the boogeyman people tell stories to kids about the boogeyman but as we Know the boogeyman is not real it is a Science Fiction.
so when they mark the category of the film they marked it as a Science Fiction.
Plus I like to add that the film was remade by a filming company (ANE) and they have to mark down the category of the film they made.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

jimfish-
The sound on the film was added in 1968. The original film did not have sound on it. There was a lot of scenes and sound added to the film when Ron Olson remade the film in 1968 for Patterson and Green.

I'll take that as a debate win from our prior discussions.

[GT/CS]

Definitely

[Leroy Blevins]

Ok what I am going to do now is tell you what is seen on the PG film.

Scene 1
Shows Roger Patterson with the blue shirt on and the packhorse in a creek then the camera pains up to the right to the top of the trees.
This scene here you can see the side profile of the man with the blue shirt on and the side profile match Roger Patterson and not Bob Gimlin.
(Scene 1 the film is a Dal color)

Scene 2
Shows again Roger with the Blue shirt on riding through the canyon with the packhorse then the camera pains up to the left up to the top of the mount.
(Scene 2 the film is a Dal color)

Scene 3
Show Roger with the strip shirt on riding through the woods with the packhorse and again the camera pains up to the right to the top of the trees.
(Scene 3 the film is a bright color)

Scene 4
Shows Roger riding down the road with the packhorse and the camera pains up to the left up on the trees.
(Scene 4 the film is a Dal color)

Scene 5
Shows the first part of the Bigfoot starting to walk away.
(Scene 5 the film is a bright color)

Scene 6
Show the bigfoot walking away and looking back and then walk away into the woods.
(Scene 6 the film is a Dal color)

Scene 6 of this film is the only part of the film that keeps running with no cuts in it. As for the rest of the film there was a lot of cut and change scenes. And scene 6 was only 30sec long.

Now what I found by going over this film is the way the camera man film it. He always pains the camera to the left or right and goes up with the camera. As I gone over the tracking dog film again we see this same thing happen as it was being filmed.

Let me explain:
The PG film shows the camera man paining up to the left or right after they film the subject in front of them. Now the tracking dog film also shows this same thing. Like when the camera man filmed one of the men on the road he filmed him and then pains up and to the right to the top of the trees.
Now we know that Rene Dahinden was the camera man and the one that filmed the tracking dog film. But no one knows who really filmed the PG film. But, by the test I did and and how the film was shot and by the way the camera man filmed the films show that both the PG film and the tracking dog film was filmed by the same man. This is based on the height and the angle of the films and by the way the films was filmed.
As it was told by Bob Gimlin he has never had the camera and he never uses a camera. So this rules out Bob Gimlin filming Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek.
And the film shows Roger Patterson with a strip shirt on and you can also see the side profile of the man with the Blue shirt on and it match the side profile of Roger Patterson. So we know that Roger can not film himself. And with editing done to the film and John Green image was taken out of the film shows John Green was there when this film was being filmed.
And the only time as told by john Green that he was there in that area in 1967 was in the end of August and the 1st week of September and there is proof to back this up.
However by the test I did I have to say that Rene Dahinden was the man that filmed both the tracking dog film and the PG film and this is based on the way both films was filmed.

[Leroy Blevins]

LTC8K6-
"a debate win"

How did you win that debate?
As I recall I said there was sound on the film and I shown a image of the film that shows the sound on it. I knew there was no sound on the original film I was showing there is sound on the film now I never said there was sound on the original film. I even posted I think one time saying the sound is not on the original film they added the sound to the film when they remade the film in 1968.

Like I said I know there was no sound on the original film. The sound was added to the film in 1968 when Ron Olson took the film and remade it.
So how is that a win on your part when I have never said the sound was on the original film.
I said the sound is on the film that they are doing research on today. And the film they do on their research today is the remade film by Ron Olson who added the sound to it.
I have known from the word go there was no sound on the original film.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

I knew there was no sound on the original film...

I never said there was sound on the original film. I even posted I think one time saying the sound is not on the original film they added the sound to the film when they remade the film in 1968...

Like I said I know there was no sound on the original film...

I have known from the word go there was no sound on the original film...

Back in Feb 2011, you said this...

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

You see the original film had sound to it.

[jimfish]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

The reason why they marked the film as a Science Fiction Subject is as you know there was never no proof that Bigfoot was real so they had to mark it down as a Science Fiction Subject.

Perhaps my question wasn't as direct as I intended, but I wanted to know what you have to back-up that "SFS" means "Science Fiction Subject", like a submission form from the film laboratory where it mentions such initialism, somebody like Olson explaining why he marked it as such, or an interview with somebody who worked at the lab and was familiar with this genre system?

"Science Fiction Subject" just seems like an educated, but biased, wild guess on your part.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

LTC8K6-
"a debate win"

How did you win that debate?
As I recall I said there was sound on the film and I shown a image of the film that shows the sound on it. I knew there was no sound on the original film I was showing there is sound on the film now I never said there was sound on the original film. I even posted I think one time saying the sound is not on the original film they added the sound to the film when they remade the film in 1968.

Like I said I know there was no sound on the original film. The sound was added to the film in 1968 when Ron Olson took the film and remade it.
So how is that a win on your part when I have never said the sound was on the original film.
I said the sound is on the film that they are doing research on today. And the film they do on their research today is the remade film by Ron Olson who added the sound to it.
I have known from the word go there was no sound on the original film.

Leroy,
Are you dishonest or do you just get confused?

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

I have known from the word go there was no sound on the original film.

Umm, better read this
http://www.forums.randi.org/showpost...postcount=5447

[Leroy Blevins]

Drewbot-
Yes I remember that post.
And I can say when that comment was written but it was not by me. You see at the time I have had other people working for me and they used my accounts and made some post on this site and other sites as well. They claim to be me when they made their comments and post somethings without talking to me first.

You see when I have someone go over websites about my research I use to have two people do this for me as I am analyzing film and doing research. I had too because there is only 24hr in a day and I can not work and do research and look over sites and answer question if they are ask. One man can not do all of this.
That got me into some trouble in the past by some of the things they post. This is why they don't work for me no more. I told everyone that worked for me if there is a question being asked or if someone is going to say things from my research they would have to come to me first and I will let them know what to type. However they just type away about my research and give out false information.
That is why in the past some of my videos was taken off of youtube and why some of my websites was taken down. They was mad at me for giving them the pink slip and they got on my accounts and took my videos down and my websites down.
This is why in the last few months I have been going over the comments on days I don't do research on.
Just like when people gets emails from me. If you do not see this at the end of my email

Leroy Blevins Sr.
BBI We not only tell the truth WE FIND THE PROOF TO SHOW.

Then you know it's not me.
If you don't believe this that is ok with me and I do apologize for any miss information that was under my comments.
And by the way thank you
GT/CS
Drewbot
For bring this up so we can clear up some of this mess.

Only the person registering an account may use it. (Rule 7)

Posted By:Locknar

[GT/CS]

So someone else made that post and you knew nothing about it?

Please no convoluted answer, just yes or no.

[Leroy Blevins]

I like to say this, from now on all comments made on this site are going to be straight from me Leroy Blevins Sr. I will no longer use anyone else to make comments for me and all information will also be straight from me Leroy Blevins Sr.
So if there is anymore miss information from now on I take on full responsibility for that miss information.

[Leroy Blevins]

NO I did not knew about that comment at the time.

[Drewbot]

And the person using your account types with the same French Canadian accent?

[GT/CS]

And this wasn't you either?

13th April 2011, 06:34 PM
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

You know when I was talking about the PG film had sound. Well I contact MK Davis and he send me a photo of the strip of film that shows the beginning of the Bigfoot walk and the 16mm film had sound to it. The photo shows the sound mark on the side and this is a real photo of the film strip. The PG film did have sound to it and I have a photo of the 16mm film that shows the sound mark on it.
Now this brings up two questions.
Why did they never play the sound when they shown the film?
And
What camera did Roger Patterson used?
As you know the K-100 camera did not have a mic to it for them to get sound. But, the piece of film shows it had sound to it.

[Drewbot]

So Leroy, did you talk to Bob Heironymous yourself? or did the person typing talk to BobH in 2008? This is from the same post, is that not you recalling your conversation with BobH?

Quote:

I talk to Bob Heironimus in 2008, After that phone call I then started to look more into it. And after all that is said and done I found that the PG film was nothing more then a part they took out of the documentary they filmed and pass it off as a real Bigfoot.

[Leroy Blevins]

GT/CS-
Some of that information is true. I have talk to Bob Heironimus on the phone and that Roger Patterson was working on a documentary film but it was in 1966 to the beginning of 1967 and Roger Patterson was also with John Green and Rene Dahinden in 1967 on this Bigfoot 67 expedition tour.
Ron Olson did in fact remade Roger Patterson documentary film and changed the name of it to Sasq- The Legend of Bigfoot. Most on the information in that comment is true but the part of the sound being on the original film no that is not true. The original film did not have sound on it the sound was added to the film in 1968 by Ron Olson and ANE.

[GT/CS]

Leroy,
In response to this question you said you tell your son what to type. Was that not true either?

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Leroy,
This is totally off topic, but why is your grammar and spelling better on some posts than on others?

Do you write all your posts or does you nephew write some?

Leroy Blevins Sr said...
What I am talking about is people only believe in what they read and not what they see. People need to believe in what they see more then going on what people tells other people. The letter did not come from me I had my nephew write the letter to show a point. And that point is people only believe in what people tell or say or even read. But as for me I believe in what I see. And what I have seen is the real Noah's ark on Mt.Ararat and the Cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden. And I found these things by the true words that are told in the Bible and not what others claim the Bible said. Like I always say don't go on what others tell you look for the truth yourself for you are the only person that will not lie to yourself.As for me I don't lie and the reason is I think telling the truth is more fun then a lie.

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

GT/CS-
My son is into research and he tries to help me. I even let him respond to some post.
I tell him what to type, it's that he has a hard time keeping up with me.
That is why some of the post did not come out right.
But, I do read the post and we go over it so he can do better the next time when helps me. I can make the changes before he post them but, I look at what will it do for his self esteem.
So he post it and then we go over it and we talk about it. So that he will understand what he did wrong.

You see the PG film is research I did 3 years ago. And I have done a lot more research since then. In the last 9 months I have been working on the JFK assassination and more stories in the Bible. The PG film is not the only research I do here.
Sometimes you need that someone to help even if it come off wrong.

He has his computer next to mine and we work and have fun at the same time.
So I am sorry for all the misunderstandings in some of the post but, I do go over them.
Most of the post I do when I find the time between my research.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

GT/CS-
Some of that information is true. I have talk to Bob Heironimus on the phone and that Roger Patterson was working on a documentary film but it was in 1966 to the beginning of 1967 and Roger Patterson was also with John Green and Rene Dahinden in 1967 on this Bigfoot 67 expedition tour.
Ron Olson did in fact remade Roger Patterson documentary film and changed the name of it to Sasq- The Legend of Bigfoot. Most on the information in that comment is true but the part of the sound being on the original film no that is not true. The original film did not have sound on it the sound was added to the film in 1968 by Ron Olson and ANE.

I don't care which parts are true I want to know if you typed it or if someone else typed it.

[Leroy Blevins]

GT/CS
Yes that was me. I did talk to MK Davis and he did send me a photo of the piece of the film that had the sound on it. And I have shown that images of the film with sound. I shown that image to show there was sound on the film. And I point out that they never played the sound and I also point out that Roger camera did not have a mic to have sound on the film.
I did this to show that the film we are seeing was a remade film by Ron Olson and ANE.
The comment I was talking about was made Feb 2011 the comment you are talking about was made on the 13 of April.
And in between these dates some of the comments was from me but some of the comments was from the person that was working for me. Again this is why I stop paying other people for talking about my research in comments on these website.
So I tell you what I will not post no more comments on here and if you like to see my research on the PG film then go to youtube.com and look up BlevinsBI this way you will not only see my face but you will hear me doing the talking in my video and then you know and see it is me and not someone else.
Thank you all for your time in this matter.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

GT/CS
Yes that was me. I did talk to MK Davis and he did send me a photo of the piece of the film that had the sound on it. And I have shown that images of the film with sound. I shown that image to show there was sound on the film. And I point out that they never played the sound and I also point out that Roger camera did not have a mic to have sound on the film.
I did this to show that the film we are seeing was a remade film by Ron Olson and ANE.
The comment I was talking about was made Feb 2011 the comment you are talking about was made on the 13 of April.
And in between these dates some of the comments was from me but some of the comments was from the person that was working for me. Again this is why I stop paying other people for talking about my research in comments on these website.
So I tell you what I will not post no more comments on here and if you like to see my research on the PG film then go to youtube.com and look up BlevinsBI this way you will not only see my face but you will hear me doing the talking in my video and then you know and see it is me and not someone else.
Thank you all for your time in this matter.

I have no doubt about that.

[Leroy Blevins]

GT/CS-
This is the last question I will answer.
Yes in the past my son does help me on some of the comments when I don't have the time to answer them. And as you see I point that out. I also point out that I go over his comments when I have the time to go over them before he post them.

Again if you don't believe me and my research more power to you I don't care.
This is and well be my last post on here so don't both a response from me again about any other questions you have or any other thing you post.
I will only respond to people on Skype that way I know who I am talking to and it will be a face to face conversation or by phone or you will see my videos with me in them.
To those who believe my research I am sorry that I will not be on here no more it's that I don't have the time to keep going over old comments one at a time and answer questions to people that don't believe my research anyway. I have other research I have to do and I don't have the time to keep going over my credentials this form is about the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot film not Leroy Blevins Sr comments or Bigfoot or any other thing only the PG film.
again thank you for your time in this matter

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

LTC8K6-
"a debate win"

How did you win that debate?
As I recall I said there was sound on the film and I shown a image of the film that shows the sound on it. I knew there was no sound on the original film I was showing there is sound on the film now I never said there was sound on the original film. I even posted I think one time saying the sound is not on the original film they added the sound to the film when they remade the film in 1968.

Like I said I know there was no sound on the original film. The sound was added to the film in 1968 when Ron Olson took the film and remade it.
So how is that a win on your part when I have never said the sound was on the original film.
I said the sound is on the film that they are doing research on today. And the film they do on their research today is the remade film by Ron Olson who added the sound to it.
I have known from the word go there was no sound on the original film.

You argued quite a bit that the the PGF had sound. I believe I even told you at one point that if you claimed it again, I was going to put you on ignore.

You did indeed post a picture to demonstrate that the PGF had sound. You continued to make that argument well after being shown it was silly.

[Vortigern99]

But Leroy doesn't lie!

He said it, and since he doesn't lie, it must be true.

He just sees hats and faces floating in foliage, and giant hippies by the roadside, and he lets his son type posts for him in his name, posts which he goes over before he submits them, and sometimes his son types stuff he doesn't agree with, but those things he accidentally misses seeing and -- oops! -- it ends up looking like he wrote stuff which is not true and which he does not believe.

But that's not a lie! Because Leroy doesn't lie. Ever. In the ranks of humanity he is the sole, unique, special non-liar who has never, EVER stretched the truth to save face or exaggerated to look more impressive than he really is. He is the ONLY one. He's special.

[OntarioSquatch]

I don't believe you've seen a real Sasquatch
Bob Titmus didn't create the "suit"...
Patty doesn't have a bear paw as a left hand
BobG and John Green aren't 40 feet up in the tree
BobH was never at Bluff Creek, California that day
SFS could stand for just about anything
The film doesn't have audio

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I don't believe you've seen a real Sasquatch
Bob Titmus didn't create the "suit"...
Patty doesn't have a bear paw as a left hand
BobG and John Green aren't 40 feet up in the tree
BobH was never at Bluff Creek, California that day
SFS could stand for just about anything
The film doesn't have audio

At long last, we can agree.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

What we have to take from this is a reminder that Leroy is not a fashion designer or atomic physicist, but he made a perfectly good PGF suit on the first attempt with no training, no model to copy, and a piddling budget.

So the 'footers that push the line about no person being able to make a suit that good - we get to roll out Leroy Blevins. The more of a caricature he becomes, the better a disproof of the 'footer assertion.

[Vortigern99]

Leroy's suit effectively rebuts PGF proponents' assertions regarding "inhuman" limb proportion and body thickness. Leroy's suit matches the PG figure's apparent arm and leg length, as well as the thickness of the torso.

However, the fur on Leroy's suit lacks realism. Whether the PG figure suit is made from dynel, or horse hair, or some other material natural or man-made, it has a lifelike quality to it (IMO) which Leroy's cheap fabric does not match.

For what my opinion is worth (exactly zero), I think Leroy should stop wasting his time over sound and hidden imagery in the PG film, and make a new suit using the same dimensions as his first one, but with higher quality material and/or real animal fur.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans. His comments are as follows:

In all furry animals the hair has a definite pattern, that is, on each area of the body the hairs are oriented in a certain direction. For instance, on a chimpanzee's arm, or even on a man's if he is hairy, they go down from the shoulder to the elbow, and up from the wrist to the elbow. This definite hair pattern can be seen even on photographs of animals from the way the light shines on their fur.

On the creature shown on Patterson's film there is nothing of the sort. As can be seen from the way the hairs shine, giving the fur a speckled appearance, they point in all directions (compare the blowups of the film with photographs of gorillas or, better, of certain bears, which have 'short, shiny, black hair', and you will see that in the latter, the shine on the fur shows that on each part of the body the hairs all point in the same direction).

The aspect of the hair of the creature in the film is exactly what should be expected from artificial fur--whether thick velvet or nylon fur--in which all threads (not actually hairs) are attached uniformly on some canvas base. When you stroke this material in different directions, the artificial hairs get bent in these directions and remain so until you brush them all carefully in the same direction.

Patterson adds--which is also seen in the film-that 'even her big, droopy breasts' are covered with short shiny black hair. This would of course be possible in some unknown species of man, but it would be rather improbable to say the least. In all larger apes the breasts have a slight tendency toward swelling, and even dropping a little, when the female is nursing its baby or if it has been nursing many of them, but even in such hairy primates the chest is almost naked.

I want to add that this (to me) obvious hoax does not shake at all my firm conviction that some large unknown human-like primate lives in the northwest of the United States and in the western provinces of Canada, not to mention of course certain mountain ranges of northeastern and central Asia."

Ivan Sanderson, More "Things," 1969, Pyramid Books
Chapter 5 (pp. 65-79) "WANDERING WOODSPERSONS"