Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Patterson-Gimlin film again.


Nordmann61

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Honestly I havent yet, Im at work and didnt want  to half-ass your post. It seems to deserve more focus than I can commit to at the moment but I will dig into it most likely in the AM...... 

Farmer, I sold you a bit of pup last night. As has been pointed out by Carnoferox on the other thread, the story did appear in Roosevelt's Wilderness Hunter, but not in the 1910 edition which I checked. 

My mistake totally. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
18 hours ago, oldrover said:

 

 

I agree with that completely, but, these are the people who were living in the middle of it, and Rossevelt was someone who went everywhere (and shot everything) so these are exactly the people who the information would be coming from rather than it being disseminated to. Aside from which, information wasn't that slow to move around in the 1800's especially not to people like Roosevelt.

The second link to the ethnographic accounts of Jose Mariano Mozino. That's a lot less clear, the source is legitimate, Mozino was there, the journal is preserved and authentic, but that's all you can say. Unless you can read Spanish, in which case you can check out what's at the link with what's in the journal, but I can't.  There is this at the link

 The creature’s skull was similar to a human’s in shape but much larger with sharp, strong fangs similar to a bear or wolf.  Its arms were long with curved claws on the fingers and it was known to emit a terrible scream

http://monstrumathenaeum.org/earliest-known-recorded-history-of-bigfoot-sightings-pacific-coast/

There's nothing available on line about the 'Matlok' which is the name given in the link, but there is slightly fuller description under the name 'Matlox' which seems to be a further variotion on the term 'Matlose'. 

 “I do not know what to say about Matlox, inhabitant of the mountainous district, of who all have an unbelievable terror. They imagine his body as very monstrous, all covered with stiff black bristles; a head similar to a human one, but with much greater, sharper, and stronger fangs than those of the bear; extremely long arms; and toes and fingers armed with long curved claws. His shouts alone (they say) force those who hear them to the ground, and any unfortunate body he slaps is broken into a thousand pieces.”

https://sasquatchhistory.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/matlox-was-a-bigfoot/

'Matlose' on the other hand seems to be firmly rooted in Nootka mythology.References to the 'Matlose' can be found here

https://archive.org/stream/chieftainsatires00brow#page/54/mode/2up/search/Matlose

https://archive.org/stream/originofprimitiv00dorm#page/88/mode/2up/search/Matlose

https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_rfIRAAAAYAAJ#page/n325/mode/2up/search/Matlose

So, at the bottom of an apparent Sasquatch like animal we find a hobgoblin/spirit type myth. 

 

Even ignoring that though, were the Nootka descriptions consistent with modern bigfoot reports in the first place? Are there more similarities or differences? 

What are the main features of the Matlog/ox/lose which tally with bigfoot? First, human like skull, second black body hair, thirdly and last, same location. What the features which don't? Huge fangs, long claws on both hands and feet, extremely violent toward humans, and restricted to the folklore of a specific region, whereas bigfoot is reported from the whole of the N American continent. So, the creature has at least as many differences to bigfoot as similarities. 

Do witnesses today describe big fangs and long claws? Violent behaviour? If not why you have to ask why the Nootka accounts and today's are so fundamentally different. 

The second story there about Muchalat Harry (who has a great name) has less detail, but note that he encounters a similar creature in the same area, but their behaviour seems to have gone from ferocious to inquisitive. And the only source I can find for it is from a book by Peter Byrne in 1976. Unless there's an actual dated reference significantly earlier than that it doesn't really qualify. 

The same thing can, and has, been said about the Ostman story. 

 

I think maybe we're coming up against each others preconceived bias' here. The description you posted of the matlox sounds relatively consistent physically with modern day reports of BF  with of course some embellishment or colloquial biases thrown in. As for the violent behavior there are several native traditions which speak of violent BF behavior , even wars with them,  and the creature's eventual decision to simply withdraw from mankind rather than engage. Now off the top of my head i can think of three different videos where a native person is saying this but IDK yet if I can back it up with any supporting evidence from the era.  

Ok ill look for any responses in the new thread I forgot about that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In every example I have looked at, relevant cultural anthropologists (who aren't also bigfooters) have thrown a lot of cold water on the "native bigfoot mythology" and say it is a modern white man's myth. You would generally need a huge amount of poetic license and largess to claim modern bigfoot from it. That native mythology is now being extended, reinterpreted and altered to accommodate bigfoot in some instances is likely to be the result of a "cross pollination" of myths from different cultures. It isn't that uncommon.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2016 at 9:21 AM, Willstone said:

But we also have eyewitness accounts "But they could be lying" I hear you say, but you expect me to believe that every single person who supposedly saw bigfoot was either lying or mistaken? That seems pretty unlikely

I use to wonder what unusual psychological effect was at play with bigfoot. Now, it seems a lot simpler. For the most part lying covers bigfoot. Self deception included. There does seem to be rare circumstances where people do genuinely and unmistakably think they have seen a bigfoot, but this would be rare IMO. For the most part people are misinterpreting mundane phenomena with a lot of wishful thinking.

So, mostly lying, with a small amount of mistakes, and an even smaller amount attributable to psychological effects such as dissociation (brought on for various reasons).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the unsupported Gigantopithecus/Bigfoot claims.

The size of Gigantopithecus is impossible to determine at this stage. It also isn't universally accepted by scientists that Gigantopithecus was as large as cryptozoologists like to claim/sensationalise. It has also been postulated that it was little bigger than modern day gorilla's, but with a specially adapted chewing apparatus. This does have some precedent from the fossil record.

The descendants from Sivapithecus could be relevant to claims in this region, such as Orang pendek (which are far more plausible to begin with). But they also lack evidence indicating they exist. There is 0 to indicate any of it would be relevant to North America.

An interesting blog from an anthropological archeologist . Meldrum tries to explain his nonsense in the comments of the first one.

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/there-are-no-known-postcranial-remains-of-gigantopithecus

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/the-modern-mythology-of-giants-why-is-it-so-hard-to-tell-the-truth

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have already discussed the numerous flaws (seriously, there are a lot) with the "Bigfoot-is-Gigantopithecus" hypothesis. I'm still working on a lengthy post compiling all of the evidence refuting this hypothesis; hopefully I should have that posted later this month.

On a side note, the famous skull reconstruction by Grover Krantz is highly inaccurate, being based on a hominid (as opposed to a pongid) and having a far too robust mandible.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will look forward to it Carniforex.

This ape lineage is a fascinating one (and still controversial to some) for many reasons. Bigfoot is not one of those reasons though. The best that could be said at this stage is that it's probably more plausible than the Alien/Bigfoot hypothesis.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.