I was born on October 20, 1973; six years to the day after Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed the famous Bluff Creek Bigfoot footage. Some would call that a remarkable coincidence, given the fact that my family subsequently encountered these large hairy bipeds over a period of several years in the late 1970s. In 2003, also perhaps coincidentally, I had the opportunity to interview Bob Gimlin on television and to return to Bluff Creek with him for the first time since that October day in 1967.

For the last 15 years, I have studied the Sasquatch phenomenon. My childhood experiences and those of my family have shaped my life to a degree that I can’t begin to know.

Early on, I noted that there were two types of witnesses to this phenomenon: incidental and long-term. Incidental witnesses may get a clear but brief look at a Sasquatch crossing the road in front of their car. No matter how much they are questioned, they can only give limited information about their sighting (e.g., the color of the creature, its gait, stride, etc.). All things equal, I decided that my time would be better spent interviewing long-term witnesses: those who, like my family, claimed ongoing encounters near their residence.

I was taken aback by what I found. These people, from all across the country, claimed subtle details of interaction that were eerily similar to those my family experienced. But these details had never been published. The stories were too “out there” for most researchers to touch with a ten-foot pole (researchers are notoriously concerned about their own credibility). But I listened, holding judgment at bay. As the witnesses began to trust me, they would divulge further details, all more and more astounding… and increasingly familiar.

Throughout this research, however, I learned true skepticism. Not an all-encompassing disbelief (which seems to be the working definition of skepticism), but an ability to listen to a witness’ story and separate fact from interpretation. Being skeptical and open-minded simultaneously is the key. Being open-minded does not make one a believer. It simply means that one allows for possibilities that present themselves to scrutiny.

There are a variety of socio-economic and cultural factors to consider when interviewing a long-term witness. Most are rural people who live on the outskirts of civilization. They often lack formal education. They very often lack technological equipment, even cameras. They are often “salt-of-the-earth” type people who are inquisitive and open-minded but are lacking in scientific sophistication. Add in whatever particular spiritual dogma they ascribe to and all of these factors tend to color how these events are perceived and related. Fantastic elements do not necessarily mean that Bigfoot-related events are not occurring. However, the interpretation is usually subjective, based upon their perception and belief system.

I asked my mother to tell me what happened in Orting from start to finish, to assuage the curiosity that has burned in me since I was a small girl. After begging her for years, she finally chose to write down the story in its entirety and I was thrilled. As it is with any witness, I am aware that her telling of the events is colored by her individual perceptions and understanding of the world around her. That which sounds fantastic to some is no surprise to others. Credibility, as with most things, is subjective.

 I waited a long time to hear this story. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

 Autumn Williams

February 2006