Interview with John Green
Green at his home, July 2004
23 July 2004 - Harrison Hot Springs, B.C., Canada
BIP: Every time I come into Harrison, I look up at the mountains around
this beautiful lake and I think of the old Indian tales about how the sasquatch
used to hold Summer reunions over on Mt Morris and stories of people being
chased by the creature. Did you ever set much store in those stories in
the early days?
JG: I'm not any kind of expert on Indian information. The culture that
we live in is almost unique in making a clear distinction between the real
and the unreal. We have to assign everything to one side or the other.
Most cultures have not and do not do that, including the culture of the
Indians of North America.
BIP: You're referring to how important myths are...?
JG: My whole career in
this is trying to answer the question of where this animal fits into
reality. This is a question that in the Indian culture hasn't even
asked. So information from within that culture doesn't help answer this
BIP: When you first came to Harrison, you ran a newspaper here, correct?
JG: Well, in Agassiz.
BIP: In Agassiz.
I'm sorry. You knew of J. W. Burns?
JG: He was no longer here. I never met him.
BIP: But you knew of the stories he had told.
JG: I grew up in Vancouver where the stories were familiar.
BIP: You were pretty much a skeptic back in those days?
BIP: So what happened? What made you believe-
JG: Well, for one thing, the word "believe" really isn't appropriate.
It's used all the time, but it's ridiculous. I encountered what would in
any other case be considered solid evidence that there was something to
BIP: Was this the set of tracks that were found in Eureka?
JG: No, it was before that.
In 1957 Harrison got a lot of publicity by proposing to have a sasquatch
hunt during the BC centennial celebration. A fellow who worked for me was
talking to the custodian at the high school named Esse Tyfting. This subject
had become quite a topic of conversation. This man had seen the tracks
at Ruby Creek back in 1941. I knew he was a well respected person so I
went and talked to him. He described the tracks and even drew an outline
of how he recalled them.
BIP: Unfortunately, there were no casts.
Female sasquatch as witnessed by William Roe (sketch
by Roe's daughter)
JG: There was a cast. By
this time it no longer existed. It had been made by a deputy sheriff who
had come up from Bellingham. A man who'd been investigating this. I don't
know that much about him, but one of his children did tell us that he had
a whole room full of material when he died, so he obviously was seriously
investigating it. One of the family gave me a tracing of this cast that
matched superficially the drawing that had been made by Esse. It was actually
on the floor of a garage that he was building, so of course I didn't have
it, but it appeared very similar to the tracing that I received a few months
later from the deputy's family.
The other thing is that the local game guide was Jack Kirkman. His wife
Martha was a cousin of Mrs. George Chapman who had seen
the creature at Ruby Creek. The Kirkman's were friends of ours so I talked about it with
them. She had said the experience had pretty well ruined her cousin's life.
She had become an alcoholic and it was something she couldn't get over.
Then I talked later on to Mr. and Mrs. Chapman, but I hadn't known them
previously. It was the association with these two people who I did know,
and of course in the newspaper business getting information from people
and deciding if it was accurate is part of the job. These people seemed
entirely credible. With regard to the footprints, we had contacted other
people who had seen them since they required an explanation.
Then there were other accounts that came out because the
Vancouver newspapers made a really big thing out of the sasquatch hunt
idea. They literally had sasquatch included in their front page index for
quite a few weeks. They were generating stories. One of those was a fellow
from Vernon who had a sighting up near Flood between Chilliwack and Hope
The other was a very
detailed description by a fellow up at Tete Jaune
Cache by the name of William Roe whom I later learned was in contact with
a zoologist about Buffalo and was considered to be a very reliable and
informed source. I never met Roe. He was living in Cloverdale at the time
the story came out, but he moved to Edmonton very shortly afterward. He
did send me a written account of what he had seen and he went to the city
hall and had it attested
John Green and Albert Ostman
BIP: Is that not the same thing Ostman did?
JG: Well, I took the local magistrate to see Ostman.
BIP: That was your idea to have an affidavit?
JG: At that time I thought that this would have some effect in making these
things be taken more seriously. Turns out that was not the case so I don't
bother doing it anymore.
BIP: We all know that footprints are the main source of evidence of the
sasquatch, except for the Skookum
JG: I like to look at it in the opposite way. The footprints are real.
Indisputably real. They require an explanation.
BIP: As Dahinden
said, something's making the goddamn footprints!
JG: Something's making them. Yeah, right. It's getting awfully close to
fifty years ago. No explanation for those footprints, other than the existence
of an animal with feet like that and sufficient weight, has been presented.
BIP: How many casts do you own?
JG: Oh, I think maybe about 10 or 12.
|Photo by Lyle Laverty of a track
left by the Patterson/Gimlin film subject showing a midtarsal break.
BIP: Which is your most impressive cast in your mind?
JG: [Pause] Probably an unusual one from the casts that Bob Titmus made
at the Patterson/Gimlin film site. There's a real break in the middle of
it. For years we just assumed that it had stepped on a stick, but when
Jeff Meldrum was studying the casts, he pointed out very quickly that there
is a twig sticking out of the ground right beside it, but this had nothing
to do with it. The imprint was made by a foot that bends in a way that
human feet don't.
BIP: The midtarsal
JG: Yes, the midtarsal break. I just have a plastic copy of the that one,
but I think that is the most impressive footprint now that this information
has come out.
BIP: I'd like to just touch of a minute or two on the subject of your database.
Would you consider yours to be the largest?
JG: No, the BFRO now has a larger
one that's growing like a weed. On the
other hand, there are so many reports now that I've given up on it.
The BFRO's online
BIP: With the advent of the Internet, I'd imagine reports are flooding in.
JG: At least a half dozen
a day on the one site. There's one other thing to say about the BFRO database.
You can't access it. If you want to know how many footprints were 16" long,
you'd have to go through the whole 8,000 or whatever reports.
BIP: No cross-reference.
JG: Mine's cross-referenced.
BIP: You finally got that done? I remember reading in an interview you did
a couple of years ago that you were working on a cross-referenced database.
JG: Yeah, well, it was always cross-referenced, but it was a matter of
getting all of the material into it. I have to do it myself. I can't just
hire someone and say, "You do it." There's too much double-checking
and weighing to be done.
BIP: So yes, the database still exists and yes, you are the one in charge
of it? People are wondering whether or not you have someone else taking
care of the database for you.
JG: No. The problem now is it's on antique software. The software won't
even run properly on anything beyond Windows 98. Well, it'll run, but it
will - and I presume this can be corrected - but it only uses half the
screen when you use it on Windows XP. You can see a great deal less, so
that's not handy at all.
BIP: So it's in a DOS program?
JG: Yeah. It can be converted, but this is not easy either. I haven't done
it, but Richard Greenwell and a professor down in Tucson are working with
it in some other computer set up. But you see, now it's getting rapidly
out of date.
BIP: The technology's not keeping up?
JG: Well, I'm not keeping up. [Laughs]
BIP: Based on the reports that you've amassed over the years, could you
speculate why you think sasquatch scares us so much?
JG: It may be just because it's unfamiliar. I don't think that would be
BIP: Different people do have different reactions. There are reports where
people don't claim to have any fear at all during their encounter.
JG: Well, I'm afraid of cougars but if I saw one I'd probably just tend
to watch it.
BIP: But, in the reports you get people who first mention the smell and
then a feeling of panic -
JG: There could be a inherited genetic reaction. It's way beyond my expertise.
They're talking now about the possibility that sasquatch communicate in
ultrasound. That might cause a reaction in us if that turns out to be the
BIP: By the same token, based on some reports, it seems possible that they
can detect infrared light emissions from camera traps, etc.
JG: Yeah, that's another possibility.
BIP: Hence another reason why there's no photos of Sasquatch.
JG: So far, I'm not aware of any camera trap pictures.
BIP: It's pretty well taken for granted based on reports of people who have
had encounters while using a flashlight and such and who have seen the
red glare from the eyes that sasquatch could have excellent night vision.
JG: Well, they certainly have some degree of good night vision since they're
so active at night. The eye thing is a problem. When you have, as in the
case of my database, almost the same number of reports at night as in the
daytime and when you consider all the handicaps of the potential observers
at night, it seems to me solid evidence that they're far more active at
night than in the daytime.
BIP: Couldn't one also say that the great number of sightings around water
- lakes, rivers, the seashore - could be explained by the fact that those
areas are also where people congregate and so that's where people see them?
JG: Yes, that's certainly a consideration.
BIP: It's not so much that these areas are those where they habitat, but
that these are areas where people go and have the opportunity to have an
encounter. It's kind of hard to speculate what their habitat is, where
they like to travel, what routes they like to use...
JG: We're nowhere near being able to do those things. As I said, it's nearly
fifty years we've been trying to find patterns and my approach to it now,
and for many years, is that they don't have patterns. If they did, we'd
have found them long ago.
BIP: Also, along that line - and this is a bit of a bone of contention with
some people who follow this subject - in your opinion is Sasquatch strictly
a Northwest phenomenon as opposed to people who think sasquatch runs from
Alaska to the Florida panhandle. There have been sightings all over North
JG: The sightings everywhere else are just as good as the sightings in
the Northwest. This is just where people were first made aware of them.
BIP: There are reports from people who give the creatures human traits and
characteristics. There are reports of sasquatch coming the aid of people
lost in the forest, sasquatch helping an injured child...
JG: Well, we do have a zoo report of a gorilla doing exactly that. There's
no reason to dismiss these out of hand, but on the other hand, there are
so few of them that it would just take a very small number of people making
things up to account for them.
BIP: There are some who think that a sasquatch should be killed and hopefully
soon - just one - to prove that it does exist. Then the governments could
enact legislation to protect these creatures. My take on it that there's
more than enough land so that sasquatch does not need any kind of Federal
protection, at least not for many years. Do you think that there's anything
that is endangering sasquatch?
JG: I would say that real estate development in Florida is destroying a
significant proportion of the habitat for the Skunk Ape, but overall in
the continent, no, they have an immense area with very little human impact.
BIP: I did some figuring of the amount of untouched land in British Columbia,
the Yukon, and Alaska and it is immense compared to the population of those
areas. The land is vast.
JG: They don't need it to be untouched anyway.
BIP: How much land does one sasquatch need to roam in?
JG: I don't know.
BIP: Where do people come up with these figures like that?
JG: They're only guesses. I mean, there must be thousands of them to be
in all the places they're reported but how many thousands...it's just a
BIP: So it's just guesswork to say these creatures are on the verge extinction?
JG: Oh, that's ridiculous. They're not under any pressure at all. They
obviously have never been numerous. It's certainly a possibility that the
population was knocked down by the same diseases that wiped out so many
of the Indians. They would presumably be susceptible to them just as the
great apes are. But as to anything that's happening today causing them
to become extinct, you can't make any case for that at all.
BIP: With the advent of the Internet, there's a lot more information about
sasquatch available to people today. Does this make it easier to pull off
JG: Oh yes, sure.
BIP: In 1970, if you received a report in California of an encounter with
a good description of sasquatch followed by another corroborating report
a year later from Alaska, wouldn't they validate each other?
JG: Not by 1970, no. The Patterson/Gimlin movie was out by then. In the
early days, if you heard of anything, you went there. If you tried to do
that today, I mean, forget it. That's exactly what the BFRO is trying to
do and there's hundreds of them and they are not able to keep up.
BIP: I guess for every ten stories than come in, you have to make a choice
of which one you will investigate.
JG: Well, out of ten there's five you will just write off. "The thing
was in my living room." [Laughs] But all that the BFRO guarantees
as to the reports on their website, that they actually post for the public,
is that one of their investigators has made contact with a person who says, "Yes,
I am responsible. This is what happened." There certainly is no possibility
of doing a search of the site and investigating the character and history
of the witness and all the things we would have gotten involved in in the
beginning. You couldn't do it today.
BIP: How about hoaxers in general. Do they do any damage to the public's
perception of bigfoot?
JG: Well, the media reaction certainly does. We've gone over the years
through a phase where anything about this was news to where anyone who
was doing something about it was news to where the only news nowadays is
when people claim to have proven it's all a hoax.
BIP: Yes, I was going to ask you about that -
from Denver Post
. Click on the image for a ridiculously
version (GIF, 1.4MB)
JG: Oh, I missed one phase. There was a phase there when any scientist
who showed an interest was news. We've now reached the extreme where some
of the world's very top people in the relevant fields are very interested
and are saying publicly that there should be proper investigation and this
is not news. The only thing that's news is that the whole thing has proved
to be a fake. The demonstration of that is very clear when this absolute
nonsense story about Ray
Wallace faking all the foot prints went all around
the world in exactly the same time period the Denver Post ran a major
article and sidebars on these key scientists who were saying it should be investigated,
the Associated Press wouldn't even carry the story. It never went anywhere
beyond Denver. To me as a newspaper man, this is absolutely shocking. I
tried to contact some of those at Columbia University's long-established
graduate school of journalism who keep a tab on the press and the response
was, "Nobody here is interested in taking this up." In other
words, for 40 years we've been butting our heads against a barrier manned
by the scientists saying there can't be any such thing. Now they're stepping
away from the ramparts and the media is stepping up to take their place.
Absolutely fascinating. The media is seeing to it that this heresy does
not get to the public.
BIP: It seems to be the case when you can bet that someone who has bigfoot
living up in that attic would get more press than something like the Skookum
BIP: They seem to want to relegate this to the tabloids and that's where
the story stays.
JG: For example, right now, we
have the proof - absolute and indisputable
- that the Patterson film is genuine. The newspapers refuse to carry anything
of that. It can't be sold so therefore they're not going to be taken in
therefore they're not going to run the story. As a result of this silly
book where people are claiming that they were involved in making the film
we've gone back to looking at the film and realize that, although you can't
establish beyond dispute the size of anything, you can establish the relative
size of things that are right there in the same film frame. This creature
has an intermembral index - the comparison of the length of the arms to
the length of the legs - that is totally outside the human range so it
cannot be a human in a suit, but it is also totally outside the range of
any other known primate of any size at all. Therefore, it has to be an
unknown primate. This can only be ignored, it cannot be argued against.
All you can do is say, "Well, you can't measure properly on the film." Well,
you can't measure precisely, but the different is so slight that it doesn't
matter. The human intermembral index is around 70, all of the great apes
are over 100, this thing is in the high 80's. The question of the angle
of this segment of the arm to the camera and so on, if you look at enough
frames, you've got to be able to get to it. And on top of that, we have
a forensic animator who worked on the "Legend Meets Science" DVD.
He says that they established beyond any question the relative length of
where the joints were as the thing was moving and the intermembral index
was pretty close to 90. This is a man who says when he was hired to work
on the film he took it for granted it was a man in a suit.
BIP: Mr. Long and his
book. People have read the book -
JG: Not many people have.
BIP: I haven't read it myself,
but those who have say it is a mass of contradictions.
BIP: It befuddles your mind
at times trying to see how he weighs his information and where he gets
his information from and how it's all added together. I wanted to ask you
what kind of an effect does this latest attack on the Patterson/Gimlin
film have on the bigfoot community in general? Or does it have an effect?
JG: Well...it's very annoying. [Laughs] It would have had a very bad effect
if it had been treated in the press the way that the Wallace thing was.
Fortunately, that hasn't happened.
BIP: They pretty well ignored The
Making of Bigfoot.
JG: Yes, they pretty well have.
BIP: Ignore it and maybe it'll go away.
JG: Well, it pretty much has. There is now an article in the Skeptical
Enquirer, but I don't know how much circulation that has. That magazine
is linked to the publishers of the book. Of course, the public doesn't
know that. Other than that, there's been just minor publicity and a few
local TV things. They did get one network TV exposure, but it wasn't favorable
BIP: No, and isn't that amazing. It seems that anything about sasquatch
that is picked up by the media is not favorable.
JG: Well, the host on the program is on our side like so many people not
prepared to say so.
BIP: The "Four Horseman of the Sasquatch" were yourself, Rene
Dahinden, Grover Krantz, and Peter Byrne. Dahinden and Krantz are no longer
with us. Who do you see as the up and coming new faces of bigfoot research?
JG: Well, the "Four Horseman" was nonsense from day one and any
list would have to start with Bob
Titmus. Today there's so many. There
was a time when I had some knowledge of nearly anybody who was involved
with this, but there's so many people in it now. Certainly, Matt Moneymaker
creating the BFRO was terribly important. Certainly Rick Noll has done
tremendous work. Jeff Meldrum, obviously, on the scientific end of it,
is a star today. Henner Ferenbach has done quite a bit. John Bindernagel
is making the links with the behavior of the great apes.
BIP: So there's no shortage of people to take up the flag before it hits
JG: Oh, heavens no. [Laughs] You know, the "Four Horseman" includes
Peter Byrne who's just a well publicized fraud. It's ridiculous.
BIP: I take it you don't have too much contact with Peter Byrne?
JG: No. I saw enough of him 40 years ago.
BIP: Your books On
the Track of the Sasquatch and The Year of
which became Encounters with Bigfoot -
JG: Well, The
Year of the Sasquatch was about a specific year. Encounters
with Bigfoot is really just a part of the same book. I redid On
the Track of the Sasquatch in 1980 and because it would have been
too fat to be a saddle-stitched book, I divided it in two. You can also
make more money that way. Charge more for two small books than one large
one. Of course, people had the option of only buying one. So really, Encounters
with Bigfoot is not a separate book. It's just that when I stopped
selling books and turned it over to Hancock for which now I'm just
an author, he brought out the second one with that title.
BIP: Your book The
Best of Sasquatch, are there any new reports added to
JG: No. Well, it isn't in that context. There's several additional short
chapters. One is about the intermembral index. One is about other recent
developments like the Skookum cast. One is about Ray Wallace. So there
is some new material in there. The basic this is you had the Wallace thing
that went around the world suddenly make the things that went on in 1958
newly relevant. Otherwise there probably never would have been another
|Jerry Crew holding a cast made at Bluff
Creek in 1958. The tracks found at Bluff Creek and their subsequent
media attention caused wide-spread public interest in the creature.
BIP: In 1958 -
JG: That's the bigfoot that
Ray Wallace is supposed to have hoaxed.
BIP: In California in Eureka, yes.
JG: You see, I'm now in
the situation where I'm the only person alive who investigated both the 'original'
bigfoot and the Patterson/Gimlin bigfoot
movie. Bob Titmus is gone. Rene Dahinden is gone. There weren't very many
of us in the first place. There was only Rene, Bob Titmus and I in 1958
and even Rene wasn't there in '58 because he couldn't cross the border
since he wasn't yet a Canadian citizen. I'm the only one who wrote about
BIP: This is not my question, but it's a very good question from some someone
on the Bigfoot Forums. What is the greatest single piece of evidence that
inspires you more than anything to keep on going in your research?
JG: Well, it's not a valid question since nothing of the sort is necessary.
It's been interesting and I get a lot of satisfaction out of it so I'm
just going to keep on doing it. It's been frustrating, but overall, I'm
not in need of inspiration. The solidest evidence is another question.
I think you've got to put the film at the top of the list. But then there's
the Skookum cast which is very powerful.
BIP: At one time you said if the Skookum cast was investigated by reputable
scientists who came to the conclusion that it was authentic, you might
be persuaded that a body might not be necessary to prove that the creature
JG: I'm now in the same position with regard to the film. The proof is
there in the film. The problem is getting enough scientists to pay attention.
The beautiful thing about the film is that it fits perfectly with the scientific
method. Replicating the basis for the claim that it is genuine requires
only a very little bit of effort once a person is provided a sufficient
number frames from the film with which to make their own measurements.
Say, "Here you have the dozen best frames from the movie from which
to make a comparative estimate of the arms and the legs. What is your estimate?"
BIP: There was some very
good work done by a few members of the Bigfoot
Forums who did a lot of comparisons, frame by frame -
JG: But they don't have all the frames. Rick Noll and I are working on
this right now - use a copy of the film and go through and pick out the
frames in which you are best able to make this particular estimate. It
won't include the most familiar stretch of the film because the feet are
hidden. We don't know at this point whether we're going to find anything
that's really good. You have to have, in the same frame, at least a half
of the arm and a half of the leg square to the camera. There may not be
such a frame. You can certainly have one or the other, but if they're not
in the same frame, that adds complications. Fortunately, Patterson's film
was taken not from a standing height. He's much closer to being in the
mid-point of the creature's height so there's certainly no significant
distortion because the arm was taken dead-on and the leg was at an angle.
We have to pick out which frames from which you can best make an estimate.
They have to be frames that are not digitized. They need to be straight
enlargements from the movie so nobody can argue they've been fiddled with
in a computer. And, if you're going to get them to - I hope - dozens of
people, then you're going to have to have a lot of them. So you're starting
to run up a significant cost. There's a lot of money and effort involved
in getting people to look at them.
I wanted the Skookum cast to be taken around the continent. We had several
good starting points of someone who said yes, they'd like to look at it.
The first question was could we get everyone to look at it where it is,
but that's very expensive.
|Dr. Jeff Meldrum with the Skookum
Image © 2000 by Richard Noll.
BIP: So Rick Noll is the present caretaker of the cast?
JG: Yeah, but Rick is concerned that it could be destroyed on the highway.
BIP: Which is valid.
JG: I would take the chance, but I'm not him and it's not my cast. At one
time it looked as if LeRoy Fish and I would take it around. But he died.
So the next thing was to find out if we could make a copy of it. The expertise
to do that was to come from Grover Krantz. And he died. It's very difficult
to copy because there's all sorts of interlocking elements in it. Traditionally,
you just paint many coats of latex and back it with gauze and so on, then
peel it off and then you can make another cast with that. But this one
would have to be done in many pieces, I expect. Again, I'm no expert. Bob
Titmus could have done it. He used to say he could make a plaster cast
of an elephant if you were prepared to pay for it. [Laughs] I have found
a couple of people who say they can do it, but it's getting pretty obvious
that Rick is just scared to have it done.
The biggest problem with seeing the cast for what it is is that it's inversed.
That works OK with a footprint cast because you immediately react to it
as the bottom of a foot. But this thing is just a bunch of unidentifiable
little slopes and valleys with hair imprinted on them. We've learned from
experience that it takes a person quite a long time to really get the hang
of it. I mean, they had enough trouble when they saw it as an imprint making
out what it was. Took them a while to figure it out - they had already
stepped on it, fortunately not in a critical place - before they realized
what they were dealing with. It would work better, I think, if it was displayed
on a wall. When you're looking down at it, your brain can't get away from
thinking it's looking at the ground. And you're not. You're looking at
the opposite of what you normally see on the ground. So that again makes
it impractical to bring a lot of people to look at it. Most of them would
take a quick look and go home. But if they've said they would examine it
and you've taken it to their lab, it'd be a much cheaper way to do it and
a much higher percentage would feel obligated to really examine it, and
the main thing, each of them that really took an interest in it would be
able to suggest to you other people you should take it to. We don't know
who these people are and this way we could have been finding out as we
went along. Running up an impressive total and eventually finding 3 or
4 with real clout who could do a paper on it and get it in a prestigious
publication. That's a really big problem that all for us face. You can
get things published by outfits that are into this sort of thing to start
with, but you can't break through with one's that would carry the impact.
Photo of 5' 10"
Jim Green standing in rock pit that, according to Glen Thomas, was
excavated by a sasquatch. Image from On the Track of Sasquatch.
So those two things are those which I would say, if I reinterpreted your
question, are the solidest evidence. The other one that needs to be mentioned
is Glen Thomas' observation of the thing digging a hole in the rocks. Again,
it defies explanation as to how it could have been done other than the
way he says he observed. I understand it's fallen in a little since I last
saw it but that was only six or seven years ago an it had been there 30
years before that without any change at all. And when I first saw it it
was almost new. There was no moss on the rocks which were obviously newly
exposed. And it literally - with a lot of projections because we're dealing
with slabs of rock - it literally goes straight down. Jim Huken, after
he retired as a wildlife biologist, said if there's one of these there
should be more and went looking for them and found probably another ten.
All those he found were more sloped. But that particular one was shaped
more like a well with rocks weighing more than hundred pounds coming out
of it. How are you going to do it? The only way a human could do it would
be to take the whole hillside apart and rebuild it with a hole in the middle.
The other thing is Rene and I phoned Glen Thomas at night, after dark,
and asked if he'd show us this thing when we first heard about it. He said
sure. So we said would you show it to us tomorrow morning? And he said
sure. So we drove all night to Portland so that he had no opportunity whatsoever
to set anything up for us. Once we were involved with it and looking at
it, it was clear there was no way he could have anyway. He simply couldn't
have done it. There's no equipment existing today he could have used. When
you get a backhoe in, they make a hell of a big hole. They have to. It's
the way they work.
BIP: And anybody who's ever dug a well knows how labor intensive that is
and how much time it takes to rock it up again.
JG: And that won't work, you see, because then you've disturbed the moss
covered rocks all around. It's going to be obvious you took it all out
and put it back again. It's a different situation today, but not when the
thing was new. It was only months old at the most when we first saw it.
Of course, almost every set of foot prints also reaches the same criteria
that you can't find any way that they could have been faked. Another thing
that the paper won't publicize - and it really surprised me - is that there's
a $100,000 reward for anyone who can show how the footprints in Bluff Creek
back in the 50's and 60's were faked.
BIP: $100,000 is a lot of money.
JG: Yeah, but it's no use if nobody knows about it.
BIP: There should be somebody stepping up to the plate to take a crack at
JG: Well, if a lot of people buy the new Best of Bigfoot, it's in there.
It may get around. But literally, the newspapers just ignored that. They're
so sure it has to be a hoax, I guess, but it's real. It's a real $100,000
for anybody who can do it.
BIP: Who's offering this reward?
|The Willow Creek-China Flat Museum.
JG: The museum
in Willow Creek.
BIP: I'm sitting here talking to you and I'm thinking, what's it like to
be John Green? Your thought of as a kind of "bigfoot royalty".
JG: Not by any means by everybody.
BIP: Not by everybody but by a fair number of people loyal to your thoughts
and ideas. At the same time, I'm sure there's other people who say, "Oh,
there goes that bigfoot fellow. He writes books about bigfoot." Wink,
JG: You got that one by the wrong end. That sort of thing went on until
I wrote a book. As soon as you've done something where you've made money
from it, everybody understands. [Laughs]
BIP: Now you're not the hack on the corner, now you're a respected author
JG: Yeah. It became obvious when I wrote the book. Suddenly the attitude
was noticeably different. I hadn't really realized what the attitude was
up until then because nobody was saying anything to my face.
BIP: People who are interested in sasquatch, like myself
and the people who are going to be reading this, they invest a lot of their
time - some even invest a lot of their money - searching for and researching
bigfoot. How do you separate your private life from this? Or do you separate
it? Is it intertwined?
JG: I never got into the condition that Rene was in, for instance. I always
had a lot of other things going on. I was very fortunate that June was
with me when we first saw footprints.
BIP: It helps when the other person understands what you're doing.
JG: We went down to California together with another fellow so she knew
it was something real and she met Bob Titmus on that occasion.
BIP: We heard a rumor that you had a membership at the Bigfoot Forums and
that you even posted there once or twice.
BIP: I think that's some information that a lot of people didn't know. That
last question is from Stacy on the Bigfoot Forums. With all of the ups
and downs, the joys and heartaches, with still no personal sighting of
your own, was it worth it and if you had to do it again, would sasquatch
be a part of your life?
JG: [Pause] Sure.
this article on the Bigfoot Forums >
This article was originally published on the Bigfoot Information
Project website (bigfootproject.org), August 8, 2004. It has not been