3 Responses

  1. Red Pill Junkie
    Red Pill Junkie January 29, 2019 at 10:00 pm |

    Thanks for commenting on my article, Loren. There’s a couple of things I would like to point out:

    You write that I wrote my article at TDG via my “friends and colleagues Josh Cutchin and Tim Renner’s upcoming book.” I would like to clarify the guys are currently in the process of writing the manuscript, of which I have not seen any portions of.

    “How we get to the story is so contoured, it is amazing it makes any sense.” What can I tell you? The way that I first ran into the story was by reading that Spanish translation of that obscure Italian book, many MANY moons ago. It’s a story I mentioned on one of our regular Where Did the Road Go? round tables, which is why Josh asked me to dig it out.

    “It has caused some errors in the story which are then used by Romero, Cutchin, and Renner, apparently, to create details that support their point-of-view.”

    Any ‘errors’ made on the article are mine alone, along with the opinions expressed on it. I wrote about the case to illustrate the kind of cases and stories Josh and Tim want to focus on on their book. Since Josh asked me for the translation and to give him the details of the Cantagalli book, I felt it was a good ‘tease’ for any readers interested in unconventional approaches to Cryptozoology –and I’m sure the rest of that book’s references will be more kosher and less convoluted.

    You say “the Charley Victor story is quite easily obtainable in English,” and would always defer to your expertise over such matters. However, anyone who tries to make a cursory search of it online would find VERY few websites or books in which it is mentioned. One of those is Abominable Science by Daniel Loxton. I was actually surprised to find that my own friend Micah Hanks wrote about it very recently, and I linked to his article on Mysterious Universe.

    I am more than aware on the translation issues when it comes to an old article that was originally printed in Canada in 1929, then translated to Italian, THEN to Spanish and THEN back to English. I actually advised Josh to ask Micah for his sources instead on relying solely on my translation! However, like I said there aren’t too many websites that feature that story, and since my translation had a few more details than Micah’s, I thought it would be a good idea to share it with our Daily Grail listeners.

    BTW Maybe the reason the Charley Victor story is not that widespread is because of the ‘weeding out’ of such high strangeness cases among ‘flesh and blood” cryptozoologists? Just my 2 cents… ;)

    “Charley Victor, an old man, tells of an encounter with a young white Sasquatch and an older black-skinned female Sasquatch that talks to him.”

    In my Spanish copy of the Cantagalli book, the young creature Charley mistook for a bear is described as a teenage white boy. Micah Hanks’ article also coincides with this. So –according to my copy– the only Sasquatch Charley ever saw was the female.

    You write Charley found the Sasquatch “in a cave.” In my copy Cantagalli wrote it was a tree that had a hole a few meters above ground. In his article Micah wrote that Charley did find a cave where the tribe elders said the “forest giants” lived, but apparently that was an earlier, separate event when Charley was younger. I omitted this element in my own article for the sake of brevity –it was already TL:DR for today’s standards.

    You write that “there’s no Sasquatch curse.” From an Anthropological point of view that is a very rushed judgement, since several Native American groups do believe these creatures are bringer of bad omens, so from a folkloric standpoint, there IS a Sasquatch curse –just like there is a ‘Tutankhamun curse.’ Now, whether there is any OBJECTIVE validity in these two curses, that’s another thing entirely… that is why I support Jeffrey Kripal’s ideas about “making the cut” and applying Phenomenology and other tools used in social sciences.

    I also want to point out –in case it wasn’t clear in my own writing– that I find many issues with the Charley story that are problematic. If he became ‘paralyzed’ after the curse, how the hell did he get back?? Nevertheless, it IS an interesting story, and my point still stands: There ARE cases and stories involving Sasquatch –some more convincing than others– that seem to go counter to the notion we’re dealing simply with an undiscovered primate. The Stan Gordon cases from 1973 come to mind from the top of my head. Are we dealing with DIFFERENT spa-like creatures there? I don’t know! What I do know is that such ‘weird Bigfoot’ stories *should* be acknowledged and collected for future reference in order to study different angles in Cryptozoology. Which is why I look forward to Josh and Tim’s book –and your scathing review of it, once it comes out ;)



  2. DoctorAtlantis
    DoctorAtlantis February 3, 2019 at 9:31 am |

    Here’s from Burn’s account (from MacLean’s via


    I said to myself: ‘The dog is tearing into a bear.’ and with my rifle ready, I urged the dog to drive him out, and out came something I took for a bear. I shoot and it fell with a thud to the ground. ‘Murder! Oh my!’ I spoke to myself in surprise and alarm, for the thing I had shot looked to me like a white boy. He was nude. He was about twelve or fourteen years of age.”

    In his description of the boy, Charley said that his hair was black and woolly. Wounded and bleeding, the poor fellow sprawled upon the ground, but when I drew close to examine the extent of his injury, he let out a wild yell, or rather a call as if he were appealing for help. From across the mountain a long way off rolled a booming voice. Near and more near came the voice and every now and again the boy would return an answer as if directing the owner of the voice. Less than a half-hour, out from the depths of the forest came the strangest and wildest creature one could possibly see.

    [And Later...]

    The old hunter felt sure that the woman Indian looked somewhat like the wild man he had seen at Yale many years before, although the woman was the darker of the two. He did not think the boy belonged to the Sasquatch people, “because he was white and she called him her friend,” reasoned Charley. “They must have stolen him or run across him in some other way,” he added.


    Meanwhile, Loren says this (in the article above):

    “Charley Victor, an old man, tells of an encounter with a young (perhaps) white Sasquatch or a white boy (you pick) and an older black-skinned female Sasquatch that talks to him.”


    You can see the original article (with photos!) online:

    The text of Burns’ narrative doesn’t say anything about the boy being a sasquatch. In fact, it seems fairly clear that he’s describing a person not a beast. (But, to be fair, there is much about the whole article that seems to imply that the Sasquatch is a “tribe” more than a “pack.” The “wild-man” narrative seems less animalistic in its description, IMHO.)

    But, in Loren’s defense, this section of the story has the contradictory section-headline of “Charlie Shoots a Sasquatch Boy.” Despite the narrative not describing that, the section headline is as clear as mud.

    Anyway, that’s my $0.02 – but it’s a weird story. I just can’t squeeze a white sasquatch out of the narrative and don’t trust that headlines are any more accurate in 1929 than they are now. Which is to say, not very.

    Hopefully, this comment will help provide clarity and not further obfuscate the matter.

Comments are closed.