The Seattle Museum of the Mysteries is proud to announce a new figure greeting visitors to the Northwest’s only Sasquatch museum located at 623 Broadway in Capitol Hill area of Seattle.
This new sculpture was donated by artist Peter Mundwiler and was part of a Seattle 4Culture project and inspired by the movie Harry and the Hendersons. It is made of ceramic and fake hair.

The Directors are always delighted at the response the figure draws from kids and tourists and welcomes photos and don’t think the Sasquatch’s lack of clothes will be an issue as he is quite hairy and has a modest appearance. He is situated a the base of the stairs and his expression seems to convey he simply want to fit in. Museum Directors believe he is a good example of what an actual Sasquatch looks like and hopes the sculpture will intrigue the public into researching themselves the reports and history of Sasquatch in the Northwest and perhaps even creating awareness of accepting others of diversity and those who may look different.
Currently the museum has four sasquatch casts from Walla Walla, an extensive archive of Sasquatch reports and sightings maps and books by Sasquatch researchers.

The museum is also announcing a naming contest April 24-July 2, 2006
Favorites are Grover (after Professor of Anthropology Grover Krantz of Washington State University who created the first full reconstruction of the great ape Gigantopithecus)
Harry (after the movie Harry and the Hendersons)
and Mr. B
Unique names will be posted on the museum’s website.
Final name will be picked at the museum’s July 2 Picnic at Volunteer Park.

For further information contact:
Charlette LeFevre at clefevre@oz.net
206-328-6499
www.seattlechatclub.org
or
Philip Lipson at philip@seattlechatclub.org

The only Sasquatch museum?

I'd say name him Starbuck. :new_whistle:

Yeah and what about the Bigfoot Discovery Museum?

I'd name him Henry....Harry's half brother....

It says the Northwest's. I believe that California isn't in the NW!

Oops! Sorry! I guess its how one interprets Northwest and now I don't want
this thread to degenerate into "what is" or "what isn't" considered the Northwest
because then we will never get this statue named!
Either way you interpret California certainly counts when it comes to Sasquatch.

Any name suggestions?

That was actually my first thought. I like it very much and can't really come up with anything better.

*Grover (I like that, too)

*Pat (we already have a Patty)

*George (Not after GWB, but after the pet mouse in "Of Mice & Men")

*Reginald (why not?)

*Taylor (after the astronaut in the original "Planet of The Apes")

"Museum Directors believe he is a good example of what an actual Sasquatch looks like."

I don't think so. Seems to me, from this depiction, that museum directors are more interested in bringing in tourists than actually showing a realistic representation of a sasquatch. I'm saddened that the figure was designed after the Harry and the Henderson's creature. One picture, it is said, says a thousand words. In this case....how true.

If you're serious about getting information out there, and promoting it from a museum (the name implies a certain knowledge and expertise of the subject matter) then it's unfortunate that you've chosen to use a Hollywood depiction of it.

Eye witness accounts rarely describe a bald forehead. There is no brow ridge present in your model. The shoulders are far too narrow. I could go on and on.

A serious museum venue, rather than a tourist attraction operation, would be more inclined to realism than your mannequin depicts.

Bringing it to a serious bigfoot forum, then asking us to enter a naming contest......Man, where do I begin.

Hey CaveArt, who made you an expert on Sasquatch sculptures?

The sculpture was donated and even though it may not meet your
"exactness" of a Gigantopithecus replica costing thousands of dollars,
its a far cry from the wooden chainsaw sculptures so often made.
Kids like seeing the figure and the directors are grateful for the donation.

Chewy (After Chewbacca)

Vern ("Know what I mean, Vern?")

Link (I am a creationist, but would be after the fictitious missing link)

Clyde (6 ribs, my a--!)

Bubba (Too southern?)

snicklefritz (???) (Nah)

Twinkles (Doesn't fit)

Humperdink (Engelbert)

Maynard (Dobie Gillis)

Grover has a nice ring to it.

Excellent choice, BSF! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Well Charlette, who among us is an expert. We're only going on anecdotal information which comes from eye witness accounts. As I said before, if your museum was truly interested in depicting what eye witnesses have seen, then you would have done your homework better, instead of relying on a Hollywood rendition of the creature....which bears little resemblance to what people have seen.

The witnesses I've worked with have consistently described features that are quite different from what your model looks like....features that most of us here are educated about.

I understand your point....that it's a donated statue. And beggars can't be choosers, I guess. It's just too bad though, because this kind of misrepresentation is a big problem out there. While the kids visiting your museum may love it, what it does is to carry on the misconceptions among the public which are continually perpetuated by the media....showing sasquatch as a cartoon character, not a real live animal. Most news articles are written tongue-in-cheek. Every time this animal is depicted in a less than realistic way, it just adds to the public's misinformation and feeds the media's appetite for more tabloid-style coverage of the subject.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, Harry and the Hendersons. I just don't think the creature they created in Hollywood was the right model to use for your exhibit.

And for your information, Dr. Grover Krantz did not create the Gigantopithecus model. He did create a Giganto skull based on a recovered mandible and teeth. Dr. Russell Chiocon, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Iowa had Bill Munns create a life-sized Gigantopithecus model. It was based on the jaws and teeth that were found at Liucheng in the Guangxi region of China. Since all they've found so far are teeth and a few mandibles, the rest of the model is a hypothetical creation based on the modern gorilla and an extinct giant baboon Theropithecus oswaldi.

And not everyone agrees with the hypothesis that the creature people are encountering in our North American forests is a descendent of Gigantopithecus blacki. Even if you based your statue on that model, it still might not be an accurate depiction. That's why eye witness accounts are more representative of the modern creature that people are seeing. In either case, the statue your museum is displaying is - at best - a caricature of the creature.....and that's unfortunate.

The name "Grover" so far has been the overwhelming favorite here at the museum.

Too bad it's already so well known as a Sesame Street character......

Yeh, Super Grover!!

Does anyone else notice the uncanny resemblance of the faces between the Sasquatch and the guy standing next to him in the picture? shorten the bridge of the nose slightly on the guy and extend his upper lip, they could pass for twins. Well, that and add a little hair.

Hmmmm a name for bigfoot?

What about Joe? People could look at him and say, "Hiya Joe!" or "Wasssup Joe!".

What about Bob? Sorry, couldnt resist. Fred? That conjures up images of stone age man.

Oscar maybe? To keep the Sesame Street theme going?

They could put some dark sun glasses on him and call him Elwood Blues.

Ionfreeze

I'm not sure about uncanny but I think you may have explained why Philip Lipson has always been popular with the ladies. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Howdy folks...

IMHO I'd name it either Bob or Roger (after Patterson or Gimlin )...

But...

That's just my opinion...

On second thought name it Roger ( people may confuse Bob with Bobby H )...

Hi CaveArt ...

The Seattle Museum of the Mysteries devotes approximately 15% of its space to Sasquatch.

Year after year, tourists account for approximately 20% of museum visitors, Pacific Northwesterners (I exclude Northern California here, rightly or wrongly) and Seattleites approximately 60%, and determined seekers of information and research approximately 20%. These numbers are documented, at about 90% accuracy.

Whether tourist or "local," approximately 90% of those two former groups walk away earnestly, although usually nominally, educated about Sasquatch and ... pausing here to give this some serious recall ... I can't think of a single tourist (a great number of these being roughly equally representative of the Midwest/East/South of the United States, Europe, and Japan) who was not absolutely amazed and consequently convinced that cryptozoology is a serious science and that Sasquatch research has an immense amount of compelling evidence, whether that "evidence" is strong, questionable, or bogus. These numbers are my own estimates based on volunteering there for more than two years, with my main interest being cryptozoology.

Permanent exhibits and media include Sasquatch sighting maps; several stills from the Patterson film and other historical posters regarding Patterson and other topics; a 40% color photo of the Skookum cast with accompanying postered maps and descriptive details of what the cast shows, etc.; four cast reproductions from Krantz, Patterson, and Freeman; three volumes of newspaper archives going back to 1799, which I was coincidentally putting together at the same time Tirademan was putting his together (these volumes really hit home with museum visitors when they can look up in the index the numerous sightings of the past in their home locales); approximately 20 VHS tapes and DVDs on cryptids and/or Sasquatch; approximately 40 books on cryptids and/or Sasquatch, including many first editions by Heuvelmans, Patterson, and others as well as the most recent literature; numerous newsletters on the topic (you know them, I presume); glossy photos of Native American depictions of Hairy Man (with the handle CaveMan, I have to wonder if you see any closer resemblance of these ancient depictions than, say, Harry); and a handful of other one-offs.

All visitors are given a detailed tour of the musuem, and the Sasquatch portion runs anywhere from 5 minutes to 1 hour, depending on the interest of the visitor(s). Whomever on the volunteer staff is giving the tour presents his or her perspective on the museum topics. For instance, I am in no way a believer of the "psychic Sasquatch"; I will, however, address it and either move on to "my reality" or remain on topics less plausible to me if that's what the visitor wants information on. The museum's mission is to firmly respect all person's perspectives and experiences, which could be interpreted by some on this board as being too lenient in the Sasquatch field, but then we certainly could all use this same open-mindedness from the mainstream media as you correctly point out. Where does one draw the line? Well, we don't--we simply refer more detailed inquiry to the appropriate "mind-matched" staff person at the musuem. It is, in fact, a bonus that we don't all agree with one another.

The museum also displayed Chris Murphy's complete exhibit, originally displayed at the Vancouver Museum, for five months in 2005. (Other Seattle museum curators and academics, including those at the University of Washington, did not have the vision and/or education to display this fabulous collection--with one anthropologist threatening to report me to the Attorney General of Washington State for making the inquiry, whatever the heck that meant *lol*.)

Past cryptid/Sasquatch speakers at museum events have included Rick Noll, Chris Murphy, Bob Gimlin, Loren Coleman, Matt Crowley, Ray Crowe, Keuawanee Lapsuritis, Roger Knights, John Green, Owen Caddy, John Bindernagel ... (am I forgetting anyone??).

I trust this summary provides you with information that proves the museum is not a tourist pad.

As to the statue itself: My own child was terrified (I'm talking 2 years of nightmares) of Sasquatch until he saw Harry and the Hendersons. He could now probably give several on this board a run for their money on what he knows about Sasquatch (particularly dermal ridges ;-)). I've seen this same transition take place with both child and adult visitors to the museum: They land in the stairwell captivated by the "caricature of the creature" and the next moment they are watching the Patterson and other videos, checking out the sightings maps, squinting to understand the impressions in the Skookum cast, and on and on. And I can guarantee that every person who walks out of there when I'm on staff knows what cryptozoology is. I call this success in line with what you'd like to see the mainstream accept. As for the naming of the this statue: I would heartily welcome "Oh, Grover, like from Sesame Street," because I'm then immediately set up for "No. Grover as in Grover Krantz, an anthropologist from ... ." Educational opportunity at my fingertips. All this because of an extremely generous donation from an artist who was inspired by some cute "Hollywood schmaltz" and became seriously and creatively interested in Sasquatch because of it.

Finally--yeah, we're beggars: We're a nonprofit museum with a small staff of dedicated volunteers who spend an immense amount of time and personal funds to keep this alive. You don't see me on the boards much carousing with the inner circle, because I'm too busy working to present Sasquatch to the public. If you've got 5K to donate, we'd be happy to commission a Sasquatch sculpture with a likeness more in line with a majority of eyewitness accounts and approved by three or five agreed-upon true experts in this field. (Incidentally, the museum does not take eyewitness accounts, because there are already sites out there that handle the job much better than we ever could. Visitors are also given the Internet hotspots to check out on their own, including the Bigfoot Forums.)

So there's some light. In no way are we blowing the lid off exceptional museum presentation, making phenomenal history, perfect, or even in agreement among ourselves at the museum about who Sasquatch is or is not and the methods of approaching the answers, but we have all had the privilege to introduce some 5,000 "strangers" to Sasquatch in a respectful, educational, and compelling environment and, while the numbers aren't in yet, I've seen an increase in visitors due specifically to the display of this sculpture, wash, rinse, repeat.

Peace out ... Dana.

What have you done for Sasquatch today?

TES...Dana.... Thank you for giving me a run down on your museum. You put a lot of effort into explaining exactly what you're doing and I appreciate that. It sounds like you're trying very hard to educate people...and that's important....so again....I applaud you for that.

As for my name....it's CaveArt, not CaveMan, as you say about halfway down your post. I chose it for several reasons. First....I'm an artist. Second...I very much admire the ancient artwork done on cave walls by early humans. That really has nothing to do with any depictions of sasquatch in the present or my take on them - separate issue entirely. Third...the uppercase initials in CaveArt are CA, representing my status as a proud Canadian.

Now to address your suggestion that I'm getting my impressions of how sasquatch or bigfoot looks from one-offs, or cave drawings.....no.....that would not be the case at all. I was trying to contribute to this thread without having to - once again - say who I am and what I'm doing....but oh well....here I go again. Sorry to those of you who have heard it all before.

I've been working on the Sasquatch Illustration Project for the past two years, working with eye witnesses, doing in-depth interviews and illustrations of the animals people have seen in close-up encounters. The process of working with a witness can take weeks, months, and in some cases, years. Because the interview process is so intensive, and extensive, the details of the features that are described to me are well beyond what a primary investigator would normally get from his or her interview. As a result, I have been given a rare glimpse of these creatures from witnesses which I've then drawn as closely as my abilities will allow. Witnesses say the finished work looks exactly like what they saw. I hope so.

So when I disagree with your donated statue's appearance, it's because I've spent a considerable amount of time studying the animal's features. I stand behind what I said above, that the statue you are displaying is not an accurate depiction of what people are seeing....and that's unfortunate.....particularly in light of what you've now told me about your museum. It sounds like you're trying very hard to educate the public about this creature. If that's the case, then you should be using more accuracy for your statue.

CaveArt, First, I'm getting the impression you are using this thread to
espouse your efforts despite your disclaimers.
This is a simple thread to request name suggestions of which despite
all your writings you have not given even one suggestion.

Second, its rather unfair you take to criticizing another artist's efforts
and using this thread to compare a donation to your works.
I did not ask you to judge.
Understand that the sculpture could have been a totem pole depiction and we
would still have accepted it and wanted to name it!
Also understand, the museum did not commission this sculpture
which was made before the museum opened in 2004 nor do we expect the artist
to change the face.

As for other Sasquatch models of accuracy, we have currently
on display a Penny Birnam mask modeled after the figure in the
Patterson-Gimlin film and on previous display with
Chris Murphy's exhibit at the Vancouver museum not to mention other authors
and artist's renditions and illustrations of their sightings.

Unfortunate? Only for you so unless you have a name suggestion, please engage another thread.

Heck, while we're at it we better get rid of this guy, as he looks to be about 20 feet tall...

If you're not willing to have something..especially art,,judged or commented on by other artists, then why post it ? There are several examples of this all over BFF and many varying viewpoints offered.

Most actualy ask for comments regarding thier work so they can improve upon it.

*sniff*

You smell that?

*sniff*

Smells like stealth moderation.

The fact is I did not post the photo to invite commentary on the sculpture (we were wll aware of what the sculpture looked like before it was brought in) but rather so people can see the object for appropriate name suggestions - this is not an artist review.
The point of this thread requests name suggestions and in all fairness to the sculptor who is not a Sasquatch researcher, please save your criticisms for a more appropriate venue of Sasquatch artists.

Charlette.....Surely you don't expect to post anything on this forum and not have it either questioned or challenged. There's a long history of that here and everyone who posts here knows this. It's because we are trying to set high standards and aren't willing to accept just anything that is posted as the truth, just because it's been posted. Expect to be questioned, even on a naming contest thread. If I wasn't doing it, someone else would.

Tube....Matt....I sincerely respect what you do and hold you in the highest regard. You have done some amazing work. Your standards are very high. You're careful and meticulous. I'm just saying that those standards should be applied to all aspects of this work, not just the science. Artists, as well as investigators, researchers, and museums....ALL of us need to set the bar as high as possible to try to elevate the search for and study of this creature. We're looking for credibility and are constantly battling the pervasive attitude that we're all crazy for entertaining the possibility that sasquatch exist.

I've long been impressed with the many great artists working in this field, and by the truly great artwork depicting sasquatch out there. Unfortunately, I've also been disappointed by the proliferation of caricatures. The public needs as much accuracy as possible in any depictions they are shown, because the scientific community is still very biased against searching for proof of its existence and the media mostly covers the topic with tongue firmly in cheek, or by suggesting one lab test identifying bison hair indicates that the creature doesn't exist, and on and on. Every time this creature is portrayed in less than realistic terms, it just fuels those negative impressions given continually to the public.

I haven't given a name suggestion for obvious reasons.

In all fairness to artists everywhere, most of us are quite willing to alter our work to suit the customer....even donated works. It happens all the time. It's not unreasonable to ask the designer to change something that will make it more appropriate for the venue. Every working artist I know does this constantly. We actually expect to do corrections. I've donated plenty of work that I've had to correct because it wasn't quite right. You can ask several people who frequent this board who have used my work on various sites. No one gets everything right the first time. In fact that's rare.

If someone did a sculpture for your museum, and it had extremely short legs, or arms, or three fingers and no thumb, would you accept it anyway, and display it as a sasquatch without question? Even though you knew it really didn't depict what you know to be a sasquatch?

You see, it's my feeling that we need to work to the highest standards possible in bigfooting. If you're in a position of trying to educate the public....not just to engage their curiosity.....then it is your responsibility to provide the most accurate information possible.....yes, even with the artwork. With all aspects of portraying it.

It's a forum. Comments are going to be made on it ,like it or not, wether it be art , a picture,a report or whatever.
I'll remember the criteria you're proposing to limiting responses, to what you want should anything I do from now on come under scrutiny.

If all you're looking for is a name try "Harry".. Thats the made up bigfoot it most resembles anyway.

It depends on how you hold the map...

Suggested name, Snuggles