John Green’s Sasquatch Database

There are few decent books on the sasquatch phenomenon; my collection is limited to about twenty and notably include John Green’s publications. John Green (1927 – 2016) was a Canadian journalist, who compiled thousands of eyewitness accounts of bipedal hairy creatures and “big” track reports across Canada and the US from 1957 to his death. In the 1960s, Green made a card-file database of these sightings and reports (estimated at 250 entries in 1968, 800 in 1973 and 2000 in 1980); he later uploaded his database to a computer and by 2001, it had grown to 4000 entries[1] (Green, 2004: 9). Green has been described as a “premier gatherer” of bigfoot data (Wylie, 1980: 163) and is credited in cryptozoology as, “the first primary chronicler in Sasquatch studies” (Coleman, 2015). The Bigfoot Field Research Organization has continued to expand Green’s database for sightings, and they’ve usefully tried to determine credibility of accounts by eyewitnesses.

While Green recorded all sightings and reports he came across, one criticism of Green’s database is he carried out few interviews with contemporary eyewitnesses, and for this reason, eyewitness accounts in the late 20th century he compiled were most often vague reports: “many cards say no more than John Doe reported to have seen Sasquatch, with no definite time, or place or description” (Green, 1970: 55). In his Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us Green noted in regards to detailed physical descriptions of sasquatches, “I don’t have much information on file cards” (Green, 1978: 445–446). Only 42 eyewitness accounts for example describe scalp hair-length, 47 skin colour (see Table 1). There is a lack of consistency and broad variation in these sorts of details when actually described; accounts describe sasquatches often 6-to-9-feet tall, but there’s exceptions under 6-feet. Green dismissed stories of sasquatch 10-feet or more as sheer fantasy (Green, 1970: 66).

Skin PigmentationNumber
Dark skinned35 (74%)
Light skinned12 (26%)
Table 1. Eyewitness accounts of sasquatches vary widely in physical details such as skin pigmentation.

A large number of sightings Green recorded were not first-hand (told to him directly by the eyewitnesses themselves), but second-hand (reported by an intermediary) or third-hand (multiple intermediaries) as well as stories he found in newspapers. The reliability of these latter accounts or stories is doubtful owing to their distortion during retellings. Green himself recognised the very limited value of eyewitness accounts seeming as they amount at best to hearsay (and many could have been made up), but he instead argued “footprint reports cannot be dismissed so easily” (Green, 1978: 348). Green’s database in 1973 recorded 256 track reports (Green, 1973: 64) but the vast majority of these had no measurements taken or footprint casts; furthermore, a large number of track reports were not accessible to independent eyewitnesses or investigators and so might not have existed. Green calculated around 100 track reports with photos, or casts, were verifiable (Green, 1978: 348). The most well-known of these “big” track casts are from Bluff Creek.

As for first-hand accounts, despite not prone to distortion they are not verifiable without physical evidence; some eyewitness accounts may be more trustworthy than others, but Green did little to determine if a report is reliable; instead, he put his faith in tracks, “A sighting report can be entirely imaginary…” he realised, but “footprints are real” (Green, 1978: 348). While verifiable tracks are “real” in the sense they can be examined (such as photos or casts), this does not necessarily mean they are authentic; Green was aware of hoaxing and fakery (Green, 1978: 349–350) but he downplayed the extent of deception despite numerous track reports in his card-files are now known to be fakes and others are suspected to not be authentic (Dennett, 1989). Green calculated only about 11% of tracks match eyewitness accounts of sasquatches in the areas where they were reported (Green, 1973: 64, see Table 2); this doesn’t lend credence to most reports of “big” tracks because many are from areas without bigfoot sightings or local folklore of the sasquatch.

British Columbia61117
Table 2. In 1973, Green’s card-file database had a total of 800 eyewitness accounts and track reports but only 85 (11%) of the former were in areas with reported tracks; in 1968 and 1970, percentages were almost identical.

Green was tricked by hoaxers several times, for example, the Ape Canyon incident was revealed to be a hoax in 1982, but Green mistakenly thought the story was true, “Did all this really happen? I think so” (Green, 1980: 48). In 2002, tracks and footprint casts at Bluff Creek from the late 1950s and 1960s were shown to be fakes by the family of Ray Wallace, who owned a construction company (Martelle, 2002). Jerry Crew first reported finding “big” tracks on a road at Bluff Creek in 1958; he made a plaster cast (Crew was a worker for Wallace’s company). A month later, more footprints were reported nearby. Green included these reports in his database (Green, 1973: 22) and leaned towards them being genuine, having seen both sets of tracks in person (Green, 1978: 67–68). Green’s tendency to be duped by pranksters stemmed from his naivety “big” tracks were difficult to fake (Green, 1968: 36–37, 1978: 349–350). Despite his association with hoaxers and conmen – Green had sense to distance himself from the lunatic-fringe who in the 1970s tried to associate bigfoot with UFOs or paranormal, “with the sasquatch, I see no need to fall back on either extra-terrestrial or extra-sensory explanations” (Green, 1978: 257).

Excluding fakery, there are other plausible explanations for verified tracks (with photos or casts) that seem “big” when compared to average human footprints; typically, bigfoot tracks are reported to be 14-18 inches in length (Napier, 1976: 71) but larger (or smaller) sizes are mentioned in sasquatch literature; Green rejected filing track reports under 10-11 inches, “those small enough to be human cannot be counted” (Green, 1978: 443). Professional game hunter turned conservationist Peter Byrne in 1974 set up the Bigfoot Information Center in Oregon to collect local sightings and track reports of sasquatches; Byrne calculated 75% of reported tracks turned out to be bear tracks when investigated (Byrne, 1975: 159). Green in 1973 had 38 track reports from Oregon on card-file (only 12 were in areas with sightings) meaning 29 were probably bears, although several of these reports weren’t verifiable. Green recognised the possibility track reports could be bears but he seems to have underestimated misidentifications (Green, 1968: 33–34, 1978: 81).

Nearly all track reports in Green’s card-files were made by laypeople rather than wildlife experts or hunters familiar with fauna; as noted by Byrne, “An experienced woodsman would not confuse a bear paw print for a Bigfoot print… the average person may well do so” (Byrne, 1975: 160). It might be asked how anyone could confuse a bear track since it is discernible by claw prints (see Fig. 1), but a bear may not always leave these (if their claws are worn down[2]), secondly, if a bear’s hindfoot print overlaps its forefoot – it can cause a “big” track, resembling a biped (Krantz, 1999: 30; Meldrum, 2006: 206–209). Green, however, was unconvinced by this, “An overlapping track would have to be very indistinct not to be recognised as such” (Green, 1968: 33). A more obvious explanation for “big” tracks is they’re human (exceptional human individuals have large feet, while Green in his The Sasquatch File included a photo of a man with size 16-inches). Green was aware “big” track prints in snow are less reliable than in mud, sand and silt; smaller tracks can become enlarged by snow melting around foot impressions (Green, 1978: 81).

Fig. 1 Comparison of a large human footprint (size 13) compared to a “big” track at Bluff Creek plus bear hind/forefoot prints (drawing by Green, 1970).

Given the questionability of track reports, ambiguous footprint casts, lack of eyewitness accounts at places tracks were reported (only 11% from areas with sightings), hoaxing, misidentification of bear (or human) tracks etc., it is not a surprise virtually all scientists do not consider “big” footprints as evidence for sasquatch as an elusive animal species. The few that do argue “big” tracks differ from human footprints by particulars of print anatomy (Krantz, 1999: 53–86; Meldrum, 2007) and argue against fakes because some tracks have dermal ridges (Krantz, 1983). Green defended these claims (Green, 2004: 10) but they’ve been criticised on the grounds, “dermal ridges can be faked in footprints with relative ease” (Bodley, 1988). One statistical analysis of track reports, mostly from Green’s database purported to show variation in measurements (e.g., footprint length and width) are consistent with a single animal species (Fahrenbach, 1997–1998, 1999, see Fig. 2). A fault with this study – is it included measurements from non-verified track reports. Without photos or casts, “there is only some person’s word for it anything ever existed” (Green, 1978: 348), and some track reports in Green’s database are anonymous.

Fig. 2 Graph showing foot length measurements of 706 track reports (including non-verified tracks, without photos or casts).

Contrary to the misleading statistical analysis, John R. Napier (one of the few reputable scientists to not only investigate the bigfoot phenomenon but sympathise with believers) reached a different conclusion – having studied “big” footprint casts and photographed tracks. Napier wrote, “there seem to be two different types of Sasquatch track, and the differences between them appear to go beyond the range of normal variation expected within a single species” (Napier, 1976: 101). Green knew about the extreme variation in measurements as well as reports of tracks with a different number of toes (Green, 1978: 350) but arbitrarily disregarded data not fitting his own conception of what a sasquatch looks and behaves like (Wylie, 1980: 169–170). There are some “big” footprint casts with three, four or even six toes (Radford, 2002); reported tracks with four aren’t uncommon (Bindernagel, 2010: 77) but Green ignored them for only five toes, knowing they posed a problem to his belief in sasquatch as an unknown primate species (gigantic bipedal ape).

In 1973, Green disregarded as many as 300 sightings and track reports from his card-files (800) since they didn’t fit his mental image of sasquatch as a five toed hairy ape-like biped – this equates to him having not investigated 37% of his database at the time. Green was a firm believer in bigfoot in the sense of an elusive animal species (which he theorised was related to Gigantopithecus blacki), but he rejected the term “believer” to describe his views on sasquatch, instead preferring to say he was convinced there was an extraordinary explanation to many of his card-files, opposed to mundane “explanations of lies, bears and hallucinations” (Green, 1968: 78). According to anthropologist Grover Krantz, Green estimated 50% of his card-files were truthful reports (Krantz, 1984) but an honest eyewitness could easily be mistaken about what they’d seen. Byrne was fairly sceptical of reports and as noted he determined 75% of “big” footprints were bear tracks; in regards to eyewitness accounts, the cryptozoologist Loren Coleman has estimated as high as, “80 percent of all Bigfoot sightings are mistakes or hoaxes” (Klosterman, 1999).

Personally, I think Coleman’s estimation, while not unreasonable is still too low; in my opinion nearly all (>95%) eyewitness accounts have prosaic or mundane explanations: ordinary animal misidentifications (e.g., grizzly or black bears, especially when observed standing upright), misperceptions of inanimate objects, made up sightings for publicity stunts and deliberate false reports, hoaxes (pranksters in gorilla costumes), pareidolia, hallucinations, optical illusions and non-intentional inaccurate memory recollections by eyewitnesses, as well as second/third-hand distorted reports, via embellished retellings. It is hard to disagree with Krantz, when he remarked, “With enough imagination almost any object the right size and shape can be seen as a sasquatch” such as a tree stump or rock formation (Krantz, 1999: 5–6). The probability of a mistaken sighting increases in dark/poor light conditions and at long distances; Green did not provide an overview of the latter for his data, but calculated from his card-files “211 reports for which time was indicated, 144 were in the daytime, 59 at night, 5 at dusk, and 3 at dawn” (Green, 1973: 64 [1970]), meaning 28% of sightings were in the dark; many of these will be unreliable.

Another statistical analysis of Green’s database explains how many sightings of bigfoot are common misidentifications. Green calculated out of 468 sightings, 170 (36%), took place in moving vehicles (Green, 1978: 454). These eyewitness accounts are among the least reliable because they are short duration; an eyewitness traveling in a car will only get a glimpse (lasting seconds) of their surroundings. Green also calculated the number of reports based on the type of location e.g., roads, dirt tracks, pathways, forests, open areas, people’s back yards, river banks, farms, hillsides, beaches, swamps etc. (Green, 1978: 454, see Table 3). Sightings in open areas are more reliable than in woods because an eyewitness will have a clearer view. In total, accounts from woods and shrublands (berry patches) total 13% of Green’s card-files. The frequency of sasquatch sightings in water habitats (rivers or sea) is 4%; these reports tend to be from far distances (100-feet or more) thus are prone to misidentifications of common semi-aquatic mammals, e.g., salmonid-eating brown bear populations and species of river otter (Lontra canadensis).

Type of location Number
Dirt tracks 245 (24%)
Forests118 (12%)
River banks111 (11%)
People’s yards105 (10%)
Wild open areas 78 (8%)
Hillsides75 (7%)
Farms 72 (7%)
Beaches61 (6%)
Water40 (4%)
Roads37 (4%)
Pathways32 (3%)
Swamps31 (3%)
Shrublands11 (1%)
Table 3. Green divided 1016 track reports and sightings into types of location.

The very few (under 5%) eyewitness accounts not explainable by prosaic or mundane explanations remain a mystery and are difficult to explain – I have suggested alternative unusual explanations – that do not require belief in bigfoot as an unknown or elusive animal species. Arguably the existence of bigfoot as a giant bipedal ape is falsified based on factors of ecology and population biology (if sasquatch is a living species it requires a sufficiently large breeding population but there is no place for it to hide…[3]); absence of evidence alone means the existence of bigfoot as an unidentified creature is improbable (Radford, 2002; Naish, 2016). Some more plausible, albeit extraordinary, explanations of sightings include escaped apes from zoos and traveling circuses (rare but documented occurrences), humans with congenital hypertrichosis (Berman, 1999) and similar birth defects or acquired growth abnormalities (e.g., acromegaly). I’ve finally suggested what I call “pseudo-Neanderthals” to explain bigfoot sightings; by this term, I mean atypical living human individuals with higher percentages of Neanderthal DNA than the average population (Smith, 2019). This could equate to them having quite strange phenotypes.[4]

Perhaps a good example of an eyewitness account that can rule out prosaic or mundane explanations with high confidence – is a report from Harrison Lake, British Columbia dated July 1974. An outdoorsman and youth project leader, named Wayne Jones, had reported seeing a hairy giant biped from a distance of 25-feet (8-meters). What makes this report convincing is “big” footprints were found at the scene (and casts taken) while several youths also reported seeing a mysterious figure at the same site. Although Jones’ eyewitness account is anecdotal – combined with physical evidence of footprint casts – is persuasive Jones really saw something. Napier investigated the report and concluded, “This sighting has a ring of truth to it and is one of the few eyewitness reports that a fair-minded investigator would find it impossible to reject out of hand” (Napier, 1976: 81). Jones provided vivid detail in his eyewitness account; he described facial characteristics of the hairy giant biped including long ears and tongue; these descriptions dismiss the idea he misidentified a bear and as a reputable individual with a position of trust in his local community – it’s unlikely Jones was dishonest in his report or involved in hoaxing.

What did Jones really observe? I think he saw a tall bearded man (a vagrant or hermit) with abnormal facial features; acromegaly explains the peculiar description of macrotia (long ears) and tongue, as well as the “big” footprints (individuals with acromegaly often have enlarged feet). Napier pointed out Jones described sasquatch as “more like a man than an animal” (Napier, 1976: 80). How many other bigfoot sightings are non-prosaic misidentifications of humans with acromegalic phenotypes? No more than a few dozen, but they arguably do exist. Curiously, there is seldom mention of medical hypotheses for bigfoot in literature. This is odd, considering the popularity of medical explanations for vampires and other humanoids in mythology and folklore (Gómez-Alonso, 1998; Maas and Voets, 2014; Markantes et al. 2016). My future research on sasquatch will focus on acromegaly. The rarity of congenital hypertrichosis (there are only 50 documented cases of hypertrichosis lanuginosa and less than 100 of generalized/terminal hypertrichosis) means “werewolf syndrome” explains, at best, a mere handful of sightings. Nevertheless, Krantz thought a wildman tale from 1884 (so-called Jacko) was based on hypertrichosis.

Fig. 3 John Green in 1975 holding a “big” footprint cast at Harrison Hot Springs, BC (photo from Green, 1980).

Green’s inclusion of the 1884 wildman story in his database[5] is not unexpected since he had an additional 14 accounts from newspapers before 1900 (Green, 1970: 56). These pre-1900 reports however compromise only 3% of card-files, while 5% date from 1900-to-1950s (including Albert Ostman’s story and Ruby Creek incident). The vast majority of sightings and track reports Green compiled are post-1960. Bigfoot as a phenomenon did not capture public interest until end of the 1950s (and reached its peak in the early 1970s). Green initially began investigating bigfoot in 1957, having met René Dahinden. Krantz, Byrne, Dahinden and Green are known as the “Four Horsemen of Sasquatchery” (Puttkamer, 1999); the latter three alongside Ivan Marx and Bob Titmus – attended the Pacific Northwest Expedition (financed by Tom Slick) to search for bigfoot in 1959. The expedition was a failure and started bitter rivalries. Marx was suspected by Byrne (hired by Slick in 1960) and Dahinden of being a hoaxer (this was later confirmed by Byrne), while Green had a spat with Byrne and claimed, “the average sasquatch hunter is so pig-headed that two of them together are pretty sure to have a falling out” (Green, 1978: 69).

Overall, my view of Green’s interpretation of his database is negative – he was duped by hoaxers, arbitrarily disregarded many eyewitness accounts (not fitting his preconceived theory of what a sasquatch looks or behaves like) and was not an open-minded sceptic but a “true believer” in bigfoot, despite total lack of evidence (Wylie, 1980: 167). On the other hand, Green should be commended for putting together the most comprehensive database of sasquatch reports; the database remains one of the most important sources for serious researchers of the bigfoot phenomenon on par with the writings of chronicler John Burns, who compiled myths from British Columbia of hairy giants (Burns, 1929). Green’s request for scientific publications on sasquatch (Green, 1970: 35) prompted an editorial in Northwest Research Research Notes calling for, “any reasonably scientific paper dealing with the sasquatch” (Sprague, 1970). These papers were published in two monographs by the University Press of Idaho (Sprague and Krantz, 1977, 1979). We can thank Green for bringing about some of the earliest scholarly publications on sasquatch.


[1] Of these 4000 entries in Green’s database, about 2600 are eyewitness accounts, 1400 track reports. A collection of the former was published by Janet and Colin Bord in 2006.

[2] “Some mistakenly rely on a single diagnostic characteristic, such as the presence or absence of claws to establish [a bear track] identification” (Meldrum, 2006: 208–209).

[3] In 1916, it was estimated Canada still contained 900,000 square miles of unexplored territory (Camsell, 1916). Most of this land however over past century has been explored while all of it has been mapped by aerial surveys and satellite technology. There has also been a sizable increase in urbanisation and deforestation; the situation is similar in the US (with exception of unexplored terrains e.g., deserts or swamps that are inhospitable).

[4] My “pseudo-Neanderthal” hypothesis for bigfoot is speculative since we know little about the contribution of Neanderthal genes to phenotypic variation in living humans, but I have suggested pseudo-Neanderthals have large brow-ridges, broad noses and also will be hairier. Currently I’m writing a paper on pseudo-Neanderthals in ancient Greece.

[5] Green thought the story of Jacko was fiction, “…in my estimation it doesn’t look very good for Jacko” (Green, 1978: 86). Others’ have argued Jacko was an escaped circus ape.


Berman, Judith C. “Bad Hair Days in the Paleolithic: Modern (Re)Constructions of the Cave Man”, American Anthropologist 101, no. 2 (1999): 288–304.

Bindernagel, John A. The Discovery of the Sasquatch: Reconciling Culture, Mystery and Science in the Discovery Process (Courtenay, BC: Beachcomber Books, 2010).

Bodley, John H. “Sasquatch Footprints: Can Dermal Ridges be Faked?”, Northwest Science: Journal of the Northwest Scientific Organisation 62, no. 3 (1988): 129–130.

Bord, Janet and Bord, Colin. Bigfoot Casebook Updated: Sightings and Encounters from 1818 to 2004 (Enumclaw, WA: Pine Winds Press, 2006).

Burns, John. “Introducing B. C.’s Hairy Giants”, Maclean’s (April 1 1929).

Byrne, Peter. Big Foot: Monster, Myth or Man? (Washington, DC: Acropolis, 1975).

Camsell, Charles. “The Unexplored Areas of Continental Canada”, The Geographical Journal 48, no. 3 (1916): 249–257.

Coleman, Loren. “John Willison Green”, The Relict Hominoid Hypothesis 4 (2015): 1–4.

Dennett, Michael R. “Evidence for Bigfoot? An Investigation of the Mill Creek Sasquatch Prints”, Skeptical Inquirer 13, no. 3 (1989): 364–372.

Fahrenbach, Wolf H. “Sasquatch, Size, Scaling and Statistics”, Cryptozoology 13 (1997–1998): 47–75; paper self-published as “Sasquatch Dimensions and Traits” (1999).

Gómez-Alonso, Juan. “Rabies: A Possible Explanation for the Vampire Legend”Neurol. 51, no. 3 (1998): 856–859.

Green, John. On the Track of the Sasquatch (Agassiz, BC: Cheam Publishing, 1968).

Green, John. Year of the Sasquatch (Agassiz, BC: Cheam Publishing, 1970).

Green, John. The Sasquatch File (Agassiz, BC: Cheam Publishing, 1973).

Green, John. Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us (Saanichton, BC: Hancock House, 1978).

Green, John. On the Track of the Sasquatch, second edition (Surrey, BC: Hancock House, 1980); also published by Agassiz, BC: Cheam Publishing.

Green, John. The Best of Sasquatch Bigfoot (Surrey, BC: Hancock House, 2004).

Klosterman, Chuck. “Believing in Bigfoot”, Akron Beacon Journal (March 24 1999).

Krantz, Grover S. “Anatomy and Dermatoglyphics of Three Sasquatch Footprints”, Cryptozoology 2 (1983) 53–81.

Krantz, Grover S. “Research on Unknown Hominoids in North America” in Markotic, Victor (ed.), The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominoids (Calgary: Western Pub., 1984), 128–146; paper was originally written in 1976 but revised and published in 1984.

Krantz, Grover S. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (Surrey, BC: Hancock House, 1999).

Markantes, Georgios K., Theodoropoulou, Anastasia., et al. “Cyclopes and Giants: From Homer’s Odyssey to Contemporary Genetic Diagnosis”, Hormones 15 (2016): 459–463.

Martelle, Scott. “Ray Wallace, 84, Took Bigfoot Secret to Grave – Now His Kids Spill It”, Los Angeles Times (December 6 2002).

Maas, Roderick P., and Voets, Philip. J. “The Vampire in Medical Perspective: Myth or Malady?”, QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 107, no. 11 (2013): 945–946.

Meldrum, Jeff. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (New York: Forge Books, 2006).

Meldrum, Jeff. “Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominoid Tracks in North America”, New Mexico Museum of Natural History History and Science Bulletin 42 (2007): 225–231.

Naish, Darren. “If Bigfoot Were Real”, Scientific American (June 27 2016).

Napier, John R. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, second edition (London: Abacus Books, 1976); the first edition was published in 1972.

Puttkamer, Peter von. Sasquatch Odyssey: The Hunt for Bigfoot (BHDF Inc., 1999).

Radford, Benjamin. “Bigfoot at 50: Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence”, Skeptical Inquirer 26, no. 2 (2002): 29–34.

Smith, Oliver D. “Greek Myth and the Relict Hominoid Hypothesis: Satyrs and Neanderthals” (conference paper), Open University Classical Studies Postgraduate WiP Day (Milton Keynes, May 9 2019).

Sprague, Roderick. “Editorial [on Sasquatch Research]”, Northwest Research Research Notes 4, no. 2 (1970): 127–128; paper republished in Sprague and Krantz (1977, 1979).

Sprague, Roderick and Krantz, Grover S. (eds.). The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch (vols. 1–2), Anthropological Monographs of the University of Idaho nos. 3–4 (Moscow, Idaho: University Press of Idaho, 1977, 1979).

Wylie, Kenneth. Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry (New York: The Viking Press, 1980).

Supplement and Errata

The Wildman of China: The Search for the Yeren

I planned to add a table documenting modern sightings of the Chinese wildman (yeren) as an appendix to my monograph (Smith, 2021). I didn’t finish it when I submitted my manuscript to Sino-Platonic Papers so I’ve reproduced the table below as a supplement.

Date of sightingLocationClosest distance of eyewitness(es) approx.NotesSource(s)
1940Gansu Province?Alleged yeren corpse observed lying beside roadGreen, 1984: 88–90; Dong, 1984: 175–176
1942Hubei Province?Eyewitness (13 years old) claims soldiers captured a yerenJaivin, 1985: 30
1947Hubei Province?Wren, 1984; Shackley, 1986: 86–87
1950Shaanxi Province650 feet (200 meters)No clear line of sight because of dense forestDong, 1984: 177
1950Shaanxi Province?Alleged yeren infant and mother came “very close”Dong, 1984: 177
October, 1964 Sichuan Province100 feet (30 meters)  Mute eyewitness; communication by hand-signallingGreenwell & Poirier, 1989: 49
October, 1964 Sichuan Province 300 feet (90 meters)Greenwell & Poirier, 1989: 49
1970Hunan Province?Bord & Bord, 1984: 63
May, 1975 Hubei Province?Eyewitness says alleged yeren was “standing not far” awayBord & Bord, 1984: 64
May, 1976Hubei Province6 feet (2 meters)Six eyewitnesses; Shennongjia forestry workersGreenwell & Poirier, 1989: 48
June, 1976 Hubei Province20 feet (6 meters)Green, 1984: 90; Dong, 1984: 180
October, 1976 Hubei Province?Alleged yeren spotted walking “dozens of meters” awayDong, 1984: 181
June, 1977Shaanxi Province5-6 feet (1-2 meters)Green, 1984: 90–91; Dong, 1984: 190
July, 1977 Shaanxi Province12 feet (3-4 meters)A ditch seperated the alleged yeren and eyewitnessGreen, 1984: 91; Janet & Bord, 1984: 66
August, 1977Sichuan Province50 feet (15 meters)Dong, 1984: 186–187
August, 1977Sichuan Province130 feet (40 meters)Unreliable eyewitnesses, mainly reported hearing a soundDong, 1984: 187
March, 1978Guizhou Province?Alleged yeren is said to have thrown wood on a campfireWren, 1984
September, 1979Hubei Province1-3 feet (1 meter)Alleged yeren is said to have grabbed the eyewitnessWren, 1984
1980Hubei Province4-5 feet (1-2 meters)Green, 1984: 91
Feburary, 1980 Hubei Province200 feet (60 meters)Jaivin, 1985: 38
Feburary, 1980 Guizhou Province?Eyewitness claims to have caught a yeren in a trapWren, 1984
May, 1981Sichuan Province25-30 feet (8-10 meters)Two eyewitnesses; both young children (8 years old)Greenwell & Poirier, 1989: 49
April, 1981 Sichuan Province10 feet (3 meters)Greenwell & Poirier, 1989: 49
September, 1981Hubei Province3300 feet (1000 meters)Long distance sighting from peak of a mountainJaivin, 1985: 38
September, 1993Hubei Province90 feet (27 meters)Zan, 2007 
1995Guangxi7-10 feet (2-3 meters)Krantz, 1997–1998
1995Guangxi?Alleged yeren “somewhat farther away” than 2-3 metersKrantz, 1997–1998
April, 1995Hubei Province1600 feet (500 meters)The eyewitness says he used binocularsMeldrum & Zhou, 2012: 58
June, 2003Hubei Province?Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a yeren run across roadZan, 2007 
September, 2005Hubei Province50 feet (15 meters)Meldrum & Zhou, 2012: 58
November, 2007 Hubei Province164 feet (50 meters)No clear line of sight; two alleged yerens behind shrubberyZan, 2007


On page 7, “50 percent” should read “over 50 percent” (Poirier estimated 52%).

On pages 2, 10 and 16 “A Brief History…” should read “A Brief Bestiary…”.

On page 16 there is a slightly incorrect title for a Grover Krantz paper (see below).


Bord, Janet and Bord, Colin. The Evidence for Bigfoot and Other Man-Beasts, Evidence Series in collaboration with ASSAP (Wellingborough: The Aquarian Press, 1984).

Dong, Paul. The Four Major Mysteries of Mainland China (NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984).

Green, John. “The Search in China for Unknown Hominoids” in Markotic, Victor (ed.), The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominoids (Calgary: Western Pub., 1984), 87–99.

Greenwell, Richard and Poirier, Frank. “Further Investigations into the Reported Yeren: The Wildman of China”, Cryptozoology 8 (1989): 47–57.

Krantz, Grover S. “A New Yeren Investigation in China [1995]”, Cryptozoology 13 (1997–1998): 88–93; Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (Surrey BC: Hancock House, 1999).

Jaivin, Linda. “Is There a Wildman?”, Asiaweek (May 24 1985): 26–39.

Meldrum, Jeff and Zhou, Guoxing. “Footprint Evidence of the Chinese Yeren”, The Relict Hominoid Inquiry 1 (2012): 57–66.

Shackley, Myra. Still Living? Yeti, Sasquatch and the Neanderthal Enigma (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1986), see also Wildmen (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1983).

Smith, Oliver D. “The Wildman of China: The Search for the Yeren”Sino-Platonic Papers no. 309 (2021): 1–17.

Zan, Jifang. “Hubei Bigfoot–Fact or Fiction?”, Beijing Review (December 20 2007).