Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

However, if I were to get up in arms about anything now it would be that for all that we are supposed to be learning of these creatures the results we are getting are bupkis for identifying an animal reported from all over the world. Come on, we're talking darkest Africa to highest Himalaya, swampiest Everglades to bone dry Australian outback and yet to their great fortune not one being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Good news for Cedrip, bad news for Meldrum, and not quite noteworthy for most in between.

What makes you think it's all the same species?

 

[LAL]

Well, if no one can tell me why Napier could not see Patty's feet, it leaves me no worse off than I was...

What's your source that he couldn't see the feet? This is news to me.

I'll have to conclude that Napier was not loking at the PGF that I can currently see. I have long thought that the PGF we see today is not the same one shown early on, and Napier's comment only serves to strenghthen my belief.

Sheer speculation on your part, based on what?

I'm surprised Napier didn't think to get an IM index, like he did on the MIM (they're a match, BTW).

Qualified scientists who saw the PGF when it was new, thought Patty was human in gait and proportion.

They were not primatologists, except for Yerkes (they were more favorable). They evidently dismissed it on one showing with comments like there's something "wrong" with it. There was no analysis.

There was criticism that she "walked like a man" but appeared female. But that's the way she should walk. Only Homo, among the primates, has the wider pelvis that makes for gender differences in gait.

Why are folks today trying to say she's neither?

Neither what?

The IM index, being useless in this case, cannot be the reason.

Why is it useless?

The film quality certainly cannot have improved, despite such claims.

The original is clearer than the VHS copies Roger's widow sent out after being burned numerous times.

Again I can only conclude that they weren't looking at the same film.

It's a shame, really.

Well, something's a shame. That straw you just grasped is carrying you out to sea.

 

[LAL]

I would be very surprised if anybody here came up with anything I haven't already encounteed before with regards to a duplication of the PGF. I have seen nothing worth considering so far. There was a suit maker on another forum who said it would be fairly easy to attempt, but after almost a year of saying what he would and could do, we ended up with nothing. Then he left (at least I think he left).

That would be Dfoot. He was here too. Soarwing took his arguments apart for months on BFF. He's off on a project now.

I think he should stop work on the failed suit and write a novel, something like "Roger Goes Hollywood." He could feature Janos Prohaska.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Lu,
I've never noticed where Meldrum, Green or anyone said much about what Patty would eat..

Any idea, and how much ?

Did you know that mostly sedentary, 400 lb gorillas can eat upwards of 40 lbs a day.

With all the IM index calculations and such, I would think someone would have put the slide rule to calculating the daily calorie requirements of a highly mobile, 500 lb primate..

Where is the evidence of foraging?

 

[kitakaze]

What makes you think it's all the same species?

Regional speciation, yes. Insert list of bigfoot type creatures of the world here. What makes you sidestep the point by asking a question irrelevent to it?

Here's another question. Does all the speculation you prescribe to of sasquatches elusion in North America apply to the creatures of similar description reported elsewhere across the globe?

 

[kitakaze]

Lu,
I've never noticed where Meldrum, Green or anyone said much about what Patty would eat..

Any idea, and how much ?

Did you know that mostly sedentary, 400 lb gorillas can eat upwards of 40 lbs a day.

With all the IM index calculations and such, I would think someone would have put the slide rule to calculating the daily calorie requirements of a highly mobile, 500 lb primate..

Where is the evidence of foraging?

To be fair there's been plenty of speculation but I would add to that how come we don't have any nice prestine images of sas hitting a salmon run? Do the bears screw 'em everywhere and everytime or are ground squirrels and marmots just that good?

 

[LAL]

Regional speciation, yes. Insert list of bigfoot type creatures of the world here. What makes you sidestep the point by asking a question irrelevent to it?

Here's another question. Does all the speculation you prescribe to of sasquatches elusion in North America apply to the creatures of similar description reported elsewhere across the globe?

What point?

I don't think Almasty are the same as Yeti are the same as Orang Pendak are the same as Yowie are the same as Nguoi Rung are the same as Yeren.

I think the Russian Kaptar may be the same thing as the NA Sasquatch.

There seems to be far more physical evidence for Sasquatch than for any of the others.

 

[kitakaze]

What point?

I don't think Almasty are the same as Yeti are the same as Orang Pendak are the same as Yowie are the same as Nguoi Rung are the same as Yeren.

I think the Russian Kaptar may be the same thing as the NA Sasquatch.

And I don't think a Hibagon is the same as a Booger but they all make for great reading.

What point? I'd ask if you're always this coy but I know better. The point being we've got a lot of upright hairies dodging us all over the place.

There seems to be far more physical evidence for Sasquatch than for any of the others.

If you could come up with a least two ideas as to why, what would they be?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, the fuss began with Du Chaillu's publication of "Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa; with Accounts of the Manners and Cus- [p. 283] toms of the People, and of the Chase of the Gorilla, Crocodile, Leopard, Elephant, Hippopotamus, and other Animals", by Paul B. Du Chaillu, with Map and Illustrations. Harper & Bros., 1861.

Again, have you read Groves' paper?

Yup. How many times must I read it?

Its very relevant to the "gorilla" discussion, since its about the evolution of its taxonomy. Its clearly stated that there was no fuss about their presentation to "mainstream science" in 1847. No refutation, no skeptcism, no BS, nothing. Oh, BTW, no mention to Du Chaillu ( who returned to New Your in 1859 and published his book 1861) as a major player in the controversies that followed, that were actually related to evolution and the number of gorilla species, and not to the definition of the genus.

Correct. The major player that the media was focused on upon DuChaillu's return (1859) was Darwin and his book "Origin of Species", published in November of 1859. There was no issue with science or gorillas before that. Nobody gave a damn about gorillas, science, or Thomas Savage. Enter DuChaillu's book in 1861, complete with his claims of complete gorilla carcasses, along with other wild adventures in the African interior (pygmys, natural wonders, etc) two years after Darwin shook the scientific/religious worlds with his theory.

This not to say he faced no problems. This is merely to say the problems he faced were not actually related to the discovery of gorillas per se.

Correct. His problems were related to ideology; other people's ideologies........

Originally Posted by Huntster
The silliness intensified with the debates between Owen and Darwin's hatchet man Huxley. The issue has grown beyond Scopes into ID vrs. "science".

It's all the epitome of stupidity; ideology gone wild.

Incorrect. Gorillas were involved in the evolution discussion because it was the study of their brains that allowed Huxley to demonstrate Owen was wrong in his claim that humans brains were completely unique in structure. This controversy, again, happened years after the gorilla genus was described. The "presentation" of the species was smooth. Please, read Groves.

Did you read it yourself (pg.4)?:

………..He repeated these assertions in several other places (see, for example, Owen, 1861), despite their accuracy being increasingly challenged by Huxley. It was the examination of a gorilla brain the led Huxley (1867) to contradict Owen fully and finally…………

BTW, what was the skepticism source? The "American public" or "mainstream science"?

The skepticism of DuChaillu was sourced in the public, fired up over the new ideology.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Because of the same denialist attitudes that we see today with sasquatchery.

I'll write again: What you call "denialist attitudes" are triggered by the weakness of the presented evidence

DuChaillu provided a complete corpse. Evidence doesn't get stronger than that.

the constant involvment with hoaxes

There were gorilla hoaxes?

and the attitudes of some bigfoot buffs when it comes to propper data handling

When the "Jacko" event occurred in British Columbia in 1884, the people of the area thought Jacko was a gorilla. How would they know differently? Nobody in western North America had seen a gorilla in 1884..

Its a completely different situation from the gorilla description (that caused no fuss) and the posterior evolution x steady state debate. The analogy you are making is not valid.

There is a very common link.

Denialism which has nothing to do with science or the evidence.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's because they were in the possession of the gorilla carcasses Du Chaillu brought out of Africa.

Yes, there was, especially on the American side of the Atlantic, who weren't the recipients of the specimens.

Huntster, read Groves.
The genus was presented by Wyman at the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, after Savage obtained the specimens in Africa specimens and made description of them. Wyman also presented gorilla bones at the presentation. Thus, specimens were avaliable at USA before the Du Chaillu published his book.

I will not read it again.

The bones Savage provided were, indeed, sent to Wyman in Boston. Further, more correspondence regarding the species was sent by Savage in the form of "correspondence" by Savage subsequently. See page 3 or your link.

The entire carcass that DuChaillu provided went to the Royal Geographic Society in England, and it was after that when the controversies began with regard to evolution and skepticism regarding DuChaillu's claims.

See? Specimens at both sides of the Atlantic and the species were already known to science before Du Chaillu started his jorney to Africa in 1856.

Yet there was still widespread controversy and skepticism.

That's denialism.

Lets review some key conclusions:

-There was no controversy regarding the existence of gorillas by the time the genus was presented to science.

Some, but not intense.

-There was controversy regarding the evidence provided by study of gorilla's brains that indicated the human brain is not as unique as claimed by Owen. The controversy, thus, was related to the evolution debate, and not to the existence or not of gorillas.

Correct.

Du Chaillu's book reception was not because he said gorillas exist, since the species were already known to science. The very link you provided (http://www.erblist.com/erbmania/duchaillu.html) indicates clearly the reason for the reception was:

Quote:
Du Chaillu was only 26 when his first book was published. He was unable to answer satisfactorily the storm [p. 284] of questions hurled at him; consequently nobody believed him, except Harper and Brothers in the United States and the Royal Geographical Society in England, both of whom valiantly and vigorously defended his truthfulness.

Correct. DuChaillu was unable to answer the questions from the denialists, and the media had a heyday with him. His credibility never recovered until much later, when all his claims were established as true.

He wrote not only about gorillas, he also wrote about

Quote:
fierce cannibal tribes, the Fans, who filed their teeth to keep them sharp; of the ravages of the Baskouay ants, which marched in dense columns miles in length, and who were marshalled by officers and generals; of hunting elephants with pitfalls; of a new variety of snake, less than four feet long and six and eight inches thick, which lies in the open places in the woods and whose bite is instantaneous death, and of many other equally wonderful sights.

Cool guy, eh?

Yeah. A doer, not a BSer.

Aniway, to say he endured severe critics because he wrote about gorillas is not correct

The jokes of the day were "Mr, Mrs, and Miss Gorilla."

But, you're right.........the criticism was all about discrediting him for ideological reasons.

(IMHO its also unfair to his book, given the number of different subjects he touched). The main reason for the reception seems to have been the large amount of little known subjects he wrote about and his failure to counter the critics.

The links specifically mention "the storm" of criticism.

Someone picked gorillas to mock him. This person could have chosen cannibals, ants, snakes, etc.

The ideological issue of the day was evolution. Gorillas and apes, not cannibals, ants, and snakes, were (and still are) central to that ideology, and it is more silly today than it was then.

Originally Posted by Huntster
What's the threat all about?

Getting sore, Mr. BadAss Scientist?

It was not a threat. It was a fair warning.

Let me make it -again- more clear: Continue presenting information, arguments and reasonings that will not provide any backing to the claim and are mistaken (such as the comparsion in question as well as the "unidentified" DNA, coelacanth, Architeuthis and "the negatives were not tampered" lines) and all you will keep getting will be the "those folks don't have a clue" reaction.

Got it now, Mr. BadAss Hunter?

No, I don't. I don't get it at all.

Try again.

 

[carcharodon]

Where is the evidence of foraging?

Read Glenn Thomas' account. He even showed where the rock piles were shifted in Oregon. You've seen the pictures of these rock piles haven't you?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Where is the evidence of foraging?

Read Glenn Thomas' account. He even showed where the rock piles were shifted in Oregon. You've seen the pictures of these rock piles haven't you?

More:

....On June 29, 1992, field activities were conducted with John Green and Jack Sullivan at the Glen Thomas rock pit in the Oregon Cascades, which I discussed some years ago (James A. Hewkin, Investigating Sasquatch Evidence in the Pacific Northwest, 1986, Cryptozoology, Vol: 27-37). The purpose of the trip was to record measurements of the pit and the rocks. The pit diameter was measured at 7 to 8 feet (ca. 2.1 - 2.4 m) across the top, and it tapered to 3.5 feet (1 m) across the bottom. The depth was 5 feet (1.5 m). It should be noted that 25 years had elapsed since the pit was excavated, so there had been some natural displacement of rock. Indeed, on a later trip to the site in October, the pit had caved in considerably on one side, causing a wider configuration and shallower depth.

We weighed the rocks on bathroom scales — with some difficulty due to hazardous footing on loose, irregular shaped rocks. Of the seven rocks that were weighed, the smallest was 35 lb (ca. 16 kg), and the largest was 240 lb (ca. 109 kg). The rock measurements were as follows:

Rock size and weight at Glen Thomas Rock Pit
(inches and pounds) No. Length Width Thickness Weight Remarks
1 23" 10" 6" 55 lb Lying around
2 14" 10" 3" 35 lb immediate perimeter
3 25" 18" 6" 40 lb of pit
4 17" 14" 5" 70 lb
5 40" 19" 8" 240 lb
6 13" 9" 11" 90 lb Lying 9 feet from pit
7 27" 18" 6" 130lb

Because of footing difficulties, it required two men to handle the rocks. In reflecting back on Glen Thomas' account, it is evident that great force would have been required to both free these rocks from crevasses and fissures and to lift them out. The strength of the animal involved had to be phenomenal.

Measurements of a more recently dug pit, about 30 yards (27 m) from the aforementioned pit, indicate a depth of 3 feet (91 cm) and a 3-foot (91 cm) diameter. Of interest is the observation that it was dug after 1973, the year that I first visited the site and noted only a few rocks pulled out. By the visible slight weathering, this pit appears to be 10 to 16 years old.

In regards to Thomas' observations, one might propose quick success by these animals in locating hibernating rodents, and that this behavior has been established over a long period of time. Credence is given to this proposition by information regarding similar pits located in the Gifford Pichot National Forest, in the state of Washington. I visited this site on July 7, 1992, with Jack Sullivan and Rip Lytle.

The pits are located in a cluster on a steep-sided ridge that pitches steeply into the Washougal River drainage, a tributary of the Columbia River. Silver Star Mountain, at 4,390 feet (1,335 m) elevation, stands immediately to the north of the site. I counted 15 pits, but I suspect many others are in the vicinity because of extensive talus slopes on adjacent ridges. Rough measurements showed pit depths varying between 1 and 4 feet (30 cm - 1.2 m), and diameters varying from 3 to 9 feet (91 cm - 2.7 m). Natural rock displacement over a long period of time has obliterated the original sizes. These rocks were not weighed or measured, but visual evaluation is comparable to the Oregon excavations.....

 

[carcharodon]

To be fair there's been plenty of speculation but I would add to that how come we don't have any nice prestine images of sas hitting a salmon run?

How many salmon runs on the west coast of North America are actually filmed? How many in real remote areas? Do people film salmon runs in the easiest to get to places or do they go out of their way to film salmon runs in places where it is very difficult to get to? Knowing wildlife researchers and film makers, I suspect it is the former. Maybe also they are more active during night (sasquatch, not film makers).

Do the bears screw 'em everywhere and everytime or are ground squirrels and marmots just that good?

No, they probably don't, but there are quite obviously many many more bears than there are sasquatches yet even bears wouldn't have the monoploly on every single river and every single stretch of river along the entire north west coast of North America.....and every single river and every single stretch of river does not have cameramen (or women) encamped on the bankside shooting film....nor fishermen/women with cameras for that matter.

 

[carcharodon]

Thanks.

Thanks for posting the link about Glen Thomas' account Huntster. I should have done it myself.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Diogenes
Lu,
I've never noticed where Meldrum, Green or anyone said much about what Patty would eat..

Any idea, and how much ?

Did you know that mostly sedentary, 400 lb gorillas can eat upwards of 40 lbs a day.

With all the IM index calculations and such, I would think someone would have put the slide rule to calculating the daily calorie requirements of a highly mobile, 500 lb primate..

Where is the evidence of foraging?

To be fair there's been plenty of speculation but I would add to that how come we don't have any nice prestine images of sas hitting a salmon run?

For the same reason we don't have images of black bears doing so.

Remember, sasquatches are reported to inhabit black bear habitat, not brown bear habitat.

The only location where black bears are regularly photographed harvesting salmon that I know of is Anan Creek.

Please inform me if I'm wrong.

Brown bears? No problem. Even an idiot like Timothy Treadwell could find a late sockeye salmon run in brown bear country.

And brown bear country is wide open compared to the rainforest atmosphere of the PNW coast. It's easy to shoot photos there.

That's why all the photographers are there; along with the fact that 75% of North America's brown bears are in Alaska; where you also happen to have open terrain.

Do the bears screw 'em everywhere and everytime or are ground squirrels and marmots just that good?

The other "open" terrain (where brown bears thrive) are above treeline, where ground squirrels and marmots thrive.

Brown bears/open terrain = no sasquatches.

Black bears/densely forested = 0.5% sasquatches per black bear.

Do the math.

 

[Huntster]

Thanks for posting the link about Glen Thomas' account Huntster. I should have done it myself.

My pleasure!

You keep up with the good points, and I'll try to keep up with links to support them!

 

[carcharodon]

For the same reason we don't have images of black bears doing so.

Remember, sasquatches are reported to inhabit black bear habitat, not brown bear habitat.

The only location where black bears are regularly photographed harvesting salmon that I know of is Anan Creek.

Please inform me if I'm wrong.

Huntster,

Good information there. I wasn't aware of that. I had assumed black bears have been filmed during salmon runs from northern California/Oregon up to Alaska. Maybe not then, in which case the original question might not need as much explaining as I thought.

And brown bear country is wide open compared to the rainforest atmosphere of the PNW coast. It's easy to shoot photos there.

Another good point. Just out of interest, how far south does the brown bear range extend along the coast? I know that inland in BC in the Rocky and Selkirk etc ranges there are brown bears to be found but how far into BC from the north do they range down the coast?? If they do at all???

It's easy to shoot photos there. That's why all the photographers are there; along with the fact that 75% of North America's brown bears are in Alaska; where you also happen to have open terrain.

Yes, like with most wildlife photographers in all walks of the industry, from land mammals to sharks, they tend to do the same ol' same ol' and stick to the already established areas...because this more or less guarantees success. Very few wildlife photographers stick their necks out spending time and money trying somewhere new and previously virginal.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
For the same reason we don't have images of black bears doing so.

Remember, sasquatches are reported to inhabit black bear habitat, not brown bear habitat.

The only location where black bears are regularly photographed harvesting salmon that I know of is Anan Creek.

Please inform me if I'm wrong.

Huntster,

Good information there. I wasn't aware of that. I had assumed black bears have been filmed during salmon runs from northern California/Oregon up to Alaska. Maybe not then, in which case the original question might not need as much explaining as I thought.

Black bears have been filmed fishing during salmon runs. I know people who have done so, I've seen such (no photography), and the black bears require salmon as much as the brown bears do.

That written, google the situation. Photos of brown bears fishing on the net are all over the place, even though brown bears are exponentially more rare than black bears.

Go figure.

Quote:
And brown bear country is wide open compared to the rainforest atmosphere of the PNW coast. It's easy to shoot photos there.

Another good point. Just out of interest, how far south does the brown bear range extend along the coast?

Originally down to Baja Mexico, but now down to Vancouver Island (as far as I know).

The greatest density of brown bears in North America near "America" is Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska. It is unlike most densely populated brown bear habitat in North America in that it is coastal rainforest. South of there is black bear country, although brown bears inhabit some of those regions.

I know that inland in BC in the Rocky and Selkirk etc ranges there are brown bears to be found but how far into BC from the north do they range down the coast?? If they do at all???

Brown bears are tricksters. They range widely. In open, treeless areas, they own the place. In the mixed forests, they're around. In the coastal areas, it depends on the terrain.

Remember that 75% of North America's brown bears live in Alaska. They've been hunted away from most of the continent. They simply can't live with people in high densities.

Quote:
That's why all the photographers are there; along with the fact that 75% of North America's brown bears are in Alaska; where you also happen to have open terrain.

Yes, like with most wildlife photographers in all walks of the industry, from land mammals to sharks, they tend to do the same ol' same ol' and stick to the already established areas...because this more or less guarantees success. Very few wildlife photographers stick their necks out spending time and money trying somewhere new and previously virginal.

As a photographer, why spend weeks upon weeks on the remote chance of catching a brown bear in dense coastal rainforest for a possible shot when a guaranteed week long photo-fest is guaranteed upon winning a permit to McNeil River or Brooks River?

The denialists simply don't have a clue. The funny thing about it is that they don't even know it, and to some of us, that's apparent.

 

[carcharodon]

Black bears have been filmed fishing during salmon runs. I know people who have done so, I've seen such (no photography), and the black bears require salmon as much as the brown bears do.

And there are a lot lot more of them then either brown bears or saquatch hey!

That written, google the situation. Photos of brown bears fishing on the net are all over the place, even though brown bears are exponentially more rare than black bears.

Go figure.

I will try that later. Then I will try it with black bears.

Originally down to Baja Mexico, but now down to Vancouver Island (as far as I know).

Yes, I knew that originally brown bears were widespread (even in England centuries ago). I believe the last brown bear in California was shot in the last century. I didn't know they reach as far south as Vancouver Island on the BC coast now. I initially guessed not much more south than around Prince Rupert.

The greatest density of brown bears in North America near "America" is Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska. It is unlike most densely populated brown bear habitat in North America in that it is coastal rainforest. South of there is black bear country, although brown bears inhabit some of those regions.

Admiralty Island? Ok, interesting thanks. Robert Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch also talks about the overlay of brown bears/black bears habit and possible mingling (or not mingling) with sasquatch areas. I'll have to read that again. It's a fascinating area of speculation I think.

As a photographer, why spend weeks upon weeks on the remote chance of catching a brown bear in dense coastal rainforest for a possible shot when a guaranteed week long photo-fest is guaranteed upon winning a permit to McNeil River or Brooks River?

Exactly. That was my point completely. This is what wildlife photoraphers tend to do. They want the money shots. They don't want to come back empty handed. If I can give a shark analogy, for decades the only place film makers went to specifically film great white sharks was South Australia. Nowhere else. Everywhere else was deemed a shot in the dark so few bothered and instead went to the more or less guaranteed location of South Australia every time. It wasn't until the 1990s that other areas like South Africa, the Farallones off California and now Guadalupe became other areas of choice. Even today, there are still only these 4 locations worldwide where filmakers specifically set out to film great white sharks, despite the great white shark being a fairly widespread temperate water species. They want results and they want results quickly so they go to the areas they know. An recent attempt to specifically film great white sharks in the Mediterranean failed and there isn't a well maintained concentrated effort to right this failure. Film makers would rather go to South Africa instead where within a day they will get their shots.

The denialists simply don't have a clue. The funny thing about it is that they don't even know it, and to some of us, that's apparent.

Very very true. Sometimes I wish the world was a simple as some of them tend to think.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Black bears have been filmed fishing during salmon runs. I know people who have done so, I've seen such (no photography), and the black bears require salmon as much as the brown bears do.

And there are a lot lot more of them then either brown bears or saquatch hey!

Lots and lots and lots.

Black bears:

By current estimates, more than 600,000 are living today on the continent

Brown bears:

54,320.

If the estimates of many that there are 200 black bears per sasquatch, then there are approximately 3,000 sasquatches in North America.

This number appears reasonable considering the number of reports contrasted with the lack of physical evidence.

Quote:
Originally down to Baja Mexico, but now down to Vancouver Island (as far as I know).

Yes, I knew that originally brown bears were widespread (even in England centuries ago). I believe the last brown bear in California was shot in the last century. I didn't know they reach as far south as Vancouver Island on the BC coast now. I initially guessed not much more south than around Prince Rupert.

The last grizzly confirmed killed in California was in 1925, in Trabuco Canyon, in Orange County (my old stomping grounds).

Brown bears are occasionally reported in Washington state, though not confirmed since 1967 (remarkable year, huh?).

Quote:
The greatest density of brown bears in North America near "America" is Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska. It is unlike most densely populated brown bear habitat in North America in that it is coastal rainforest. South of there is black bear country, although brown bears inhabit some of those regions.

Admiralty Island? Ok, interesting thanks. Robert Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch also talks about the overlay of brown bears/black bears habit and possible mingling (or not mingling) with sasquatch areas. I'll have to read that again. It's a fascinating area of speculation I think.

Having known both black bears and brown bears intimately, I'm convinced that sasquatches would enjoy prime black bear habitat, and avoid prime brown bear habitat.

Quote:
As a photographer, why spend weeks upon weeks on the remote chance of catching a brown bear in dense coastal rainforest for a possible shot when a guaranteed week long photo-fest is guaranteed upon winning a permit to McNeil River or Brooks River?

Exactly. That was my point completely. This is what wildlife photoraphers tend to do. They want the money shots. They don't want to come back empty handed. If I can give a shark analogy, for decades the only place film makers went to specifically film great white sharks was South Australia. Nowhere else. Everywhere else was deemed a shot in the dark so few bothered and instead went to the more or less guaranteed location of South Australia every time. It wasn't until the 1990s that other areas like South Africa, the Farallones off California and now Guadalupe became other areas of choice. Even today, there are still only these 4 locations worldwide where filmakers specifically set out to film great white sharks, despite the great white shark being a fairly widespread temperate water species.

You understand completely.

The sasquatch denialists will continue to deny.

Quote:
The denialists simply don't have a clue. The funny thing about it is that they don't even know it, and to some of us, that's apparent.

Very very true. Sometimes I wish the world was a simple as some of them tend to think.

Their worlds are simple.

But I don't want to live in their worlds.

I prefer the real thing.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correct. The major player that the media was focused on upon DuChaillu's return (1859) was Darwin and his book "Origin of Species", published in November of 1859. There was no issue with science or gorillas before that. Nobody gave a damn about gorillas, science, or Thomas Savage. Enter DuChaillu's book in 1861, complete with his claims of complete gorilla carcasses, along with other wild adventures in the African interior (pygmys, natural wonders, etc) two years after Darwin shook the scientific/religious worlds with his theory.

Thus, his problems were not related to the "discovery" of gorillas. They can not be compared with bigfoot's situation, specially because there were gorilla specimens avaliable...

Darwin suffered from similar -and worse- attacks. Ever seen the Darwin with a chimp body drawing? The attacks were not related to the existence of any species, but to evolution.

Correct. His problems were related to ideology; other people's ideologies........

More specifically in an ideology based on belief and not carefull evaluation of data and critical thinking.

The skepticism of DuChaillu was sourced in the public, fired up over the new ideology.

And once again, it was actually because somehow he got caught in the fire exchange between evolutionists and "steady-statists" (creationists). Not because he championed the idea "gorillas are real creatures". No paralell with bigfeet situation. Specially because there were avaliable gorilla specimens.

DuChaillu provided a complete corpse. Evidence doesn't get stronger than that.

And there were already specimens avaliable and published papers on the animals at both sides of the Atlantic. The existence of gorillas was not being discussed.

There were gorilla hoaxes?

Hoaxes, probaby not. But mistaken identifications and genus/species confusions, yes. Groves show some examples.

When the "Jacko" event occurred in British Columbia in 1884, the people of the area thought Jacko was a gorilla. How would they know differently? Nobody in western North America had seen a gorilla in 1884..

From 1847 untill 1884 there was plenty of time for people get used to their image using books and newspapers.

On an OT line, the IIRC the Jacko stuff is quite fishy also...

There is a very common link.

Denialism which has nothing to do with science or the evidence.

You know, "denialism" claims won't take you nowhere...

The comparsion between gorillas' "discovery" by science and bigfoot does not stands because there was no controversy surrounding the presentation of the species, the evidence presented to back it was not "denied".