Originally posted by LadySkadi
All it takes is one personal experience to change the mind of the most ardent skeptic...
Now that's the whole entire unvarnished fact of that matter!
I've seen several arguments (not here specifically, but around, doing research on the matter) saying that this phenomena is of recent provenance -
that, if these things were real, there would be a history of sightings going back beyond the 40's or 50's. The simple fact is, there ARE several
accounts, going back almost to the beginning of white settlement in America. Many of them may not be recognized as such.
I'm not talking about Indian legends, like the Algonquian Missisengw (Guardian of the Forest), I'm talking about reports from pioneers and
explorers. I'll give one example, and I'm willing to bet no one has ever heard of it, simply because of the circumstances.
In 1774, Lord Dunmore's War on what was then the western frontier of America was on. It culminated in the Battle of Point Pleasant on 10 October
1774. The white militiamen who would do battle with the Indian coalition in that fight began gathering at fort Union, in what is now West Virginia in
the late spring of 1774. When all had gathered in, they began the march to the Ohio river via the Greenbrier and Great Kanawha rivers, under command
of Col. William Fleming. Along the way, the were under observation by Indian scouts, and consequently had to send out their own scouts and flankers to
secure the line of march through this wilderness area.
Col. Fleming kept a journal of the march, and in one entry records that the scouts had come back in, and reported finding the tracks of an "Indian"
out there, having a phenomenally large foot. It was so phenomenal and unheard of, in fact, that Col. Fleming made an entry in to his journal recording
the actual measurement of the print - 14 inches long. Now, for this information to get back to Fleming, the scouts would have had to have been so
impressed with the strangeness of it to actually measure it. These men were backwoodsmen - men familiar with tracking, hunting, and Indian fighting,
who would have been pretty familiar with standard tracks, and hard-bitten enough to have been singularly unimpressed with merely finding an Indian
track, especially considering that they were expecting to find just those.
I believe that was probably a report of a bigfoot track, but filtered through the conventional knowledge and expectations of the times, to be reported
as an "Indian" footprint. I've never seen it reported anywhere in the "bigfoot literature", probably because of the provenance of it, and the
fact that it was reported as "Indian". No one thought twice about it who read the report. I ran across it myself while reading Fleming's journal of
the expedition in an old book called "The Documentary History of Dunmore's War", and as far as I know, this is the first time it's ever been
linked as a possibility in print.
Yeah, there's "things" in them woods. Just what those "things" are may, however, be open to interpretation.