Bigfoot: the Corpse of 1847

hi I'm Bob Gimlin the first documented account of gigantic hairy man-like creatures is from 500 BC by Hannah the navigator an explorer from Carthage in Hannah's account of his brief encounter he described them as quote savage people the greater part of whom are women who are covered in hair Hannah didn't know anything about the beings but he said that the natives held them in great reverence and didn't bother them then in 1625 explorer andrew patel returned to england describing quote monsters that fed on fruit and are like a man but with gigantic stature and then in 1847 a physician from Connecticut enthralled with native stories of a woman stealing monster set out to shoot one of these beasts amazingly he claims to successfully shot one but his creatures tracks went straight up a cliff either the creature overestimated its climbing abilities with its injury or he simply committed suicide interesting to think about the American physician took his team down a treacherous course to find where the creatures body fell but the party could not recover their prize dejectedly he began the trek home when he stumbled upon another creature this one in a group this time he successfully shot and killed one of his quarry his team had no way of transporting the hulking creature through deep Bush in heat so the position cut off the head of his prize and finally the physician provided modern Western science with the evidence required to begin serious inquiry on the gorilla though I should note it wasn't until 1902 that the larger Eastern or mountain gorilla was shot retrieved and thusly verified the point of this spiel was tails Strait that time is relative to those who perceive it which is you and me a large hairy man-like ape thought to be mythical was not proven until 1847 less than 200 years ago which seems like a long time and it is for any one individual or person but 170 years is a blink of an eye in terms of populations in terms of societal progress and historical perspective 170 years ago the gorilla was a myth nothing more than the subject of illustrations and boogieman stories that's less than 200 years ago the Roman Republic lasted 500 years with the Roman Empire lasting 1500 years that is 2,000 years of Roman society this you tree somewhere in a cemetery in the United Kingdom is approximately 1,500 years old Europeans have only been in the Americas for about five hundred and three years and how many of those years has anyone been looking for a cryptic ape also consider Westerners in Europe have had access to Africa far longer than Europeans have had access to America so the gorillas verification would sensibly have quite the headstart I'm trying to say that 170 years is not so long especially when comparing the verification of similar large primates compared to another 170 years is no great length of time at all especially when you consider that researchers have not even been using agreed-upon methodology until very recently basically the only way to verify Bigfoot until again recently would have been for one to walk in front of a train or a large caliber round which seems unlikely when you consider that we are probably dealing with something that is smarter than us as far as motor skills are concerned and Bigfoot like other apes are defined by their intelligence critically and strategically so the first similarity to Bigfoot and gorilla in regard to species verification is time frame the two were and will be respectively verified and approximately the same time frame as a note Bigfoot has already been discovered Bigfoot has not been verified just as gorilla verification has occurred and Bigfoot verification is occurring all in a relative timeframe seeing as gorillas were only verified in 1847 200 years is a micro sample in the course of any field of study these are partying pots also known as Baghdad batteries so it took over 2,000 years for batteries to look like they do today and that is because time is long but life is short primatology like any other field has a long way to go I'm going to continue with the Sasquatch gorilla comparison so what other parallels exist between the two primates well cultural depictions comes to mind gorillas before and after they were verified were seen as monstrous and very dangerous as is represented by a manual for maze 1859 sculpture entitled gorilla carrying off a woman this piece of art was considered too frightening to be publicly displayed by the art scene I guess because of the implications but then there is the nice gorilla and the ones who are friends with Tarzan or mightyjoyoung or King Kong so gorilla representations skew toward the best or the worst just as Bigfoot representations today skew to the best and also the worst the fact that both creatures are treated similarly in the eyes of the mass media is not a coincidence nor is it a coincidence that people had a rough idea of what a gorilla actually looked like before it was even verified just as people have a rough idea of what Bigfoot looked like though it has not been verified timeframe and cultural perception are two parallels but what else well to me the most obvious is often the most overlooked by skeptics and researchers alike and I'm talking about the creatures Anatomy particularly mass the morphology of Bigfoot is in some respects on par with gorillas I think it's worth taking a moment to discuss how massive gorillas actually are in Cameroon in 1946 a silverback western lowland gorilla was shot he was a striking six foot tall and weighed over 580 pounds so there is not only precedent but reality in a 500 plus pound ape wandering the woods what I'm trying to say is that there is in fact not only a modern precedent but a modern reality for a massive ape to roam undisturbed in the wilds in the remote places of the world and though gorillas are intelligent their intelligence and just as importantly perhaps their mobility pales in comparison to this equally real primate in my opinion one of the two apes is simply far more camera-shy so time frame cultural perception anatomical precedence next is the notion of elusive remains the only fossil gorillas that exists are in the form of 1990 are the entire existing fossil evidence record for gorillas I actually can't show you the 19th because they are specifically copyrighted but they come from a very close gorillas ancestor called coral Pittacus and let there yet be another reminder that apes and monkeys once were a very common staple in forests particularly those of varying elevations be it Africa a Asia Europe South America but apparently not North America for some reason conditions were great apes thrive be at the Albertine mountains of Africa or the Pacific Northwest and North America simply are not conducive to fossil preservation and this is just one of the many reasons that the odds are constantly against us especially in the timeframe that modern science would expect or has come to expect the next parallel between the two great apes I would like to discuss is behavioral correlation first on the docket regarding a behavioral correlation is that the two apes seem to exclusively flee or avoid combative situations this is a tendency towards flight rather than fight gorillas and Bigfoot seem to be evasive creatures as opposed to offensive creatures there is no documented account of a gorilla killing a human and I would argue the same for Bigfoot Dave Politis and the wilderness hunter on the shelf for a moment but there really is no evidence or reason to believe that Bigfoot see any positive outcome resulting from combat with humans under any given situation and they are quite right almost like they know what they're doing thus Bigfoot must possess an environmental and topographical awareness that always entertains an obvious escape route another behavioral correlation is within the family unit itself gorillas are probably the best analogue we have to Bigfoot in that regard gorillas are led by a silverback or dominant male he enjoys exclusive mating rights in exchange for being the troops protector and guide to seasonal food resources as he learned when he was young from a different silverback gorilla according to Harcourts bachelor group of gorillas 1988 61% of gorilla troops have one male with the rest of the troop being female and 36% have one dominant male with other subservient males it has even been noted that silver backs are more likely to allow males into the group when there is need for example if the silverback keeps losing his offspring to say leopard predation he's more likely to allow another mature male gorilla into his group to me this represents intellect over instinct instinct tells the silverback to have sole mating advantage where intellect tells him that mating won't do any good he can't keep his offspring alive in the first place intellect over instinct is exactly why we have so much trouble with these guys by the way but back to family composition group sizes vary from five to thirty individuals 60% of all females leave their group to join another and 75% of males will eventually leave their group to join a new troop or start their own males typically leave one of their ten or eleven years old and females when they are eight years old and regarding those last two has actually been proven by sociologists that human females also typically leave their family at a younger age than males just like gorillas and again this is all according to hardcourt from 1988 bachelor groups of gorillas and I think this is a halfway decent model for the social structure of Bigfoot so let's extrapolate the gorilla social behavior to Bigfoot and see how it sounds 61% of Bigfoot groups have one adult male 36% of Bigfoot groups have one or more adult males group size is between five and thirty individuals sixty percent of females will leave the group at some point 75 percent or more of males will leave the group males tend to leave at ten years of age older than females who tend to leave at eight years of age and I should note regarding these final statistics these are the situations where in sightings occur I would argue that an individual leaving the group causes over 90% of sightings when either a young adult or two throned alpha perhaps physically or even emotionally damaged is forced into a new range they may encounter situations they may not have experienced before like say roads which is where most sightings occur according to the BFRO and in this particular instance I'm inclined to agree with this son of a money maker my final parallel between gorilla and Sasquatch is actually a prediction and that is the proliferation of species let me explain what I mean Western gorillas seen here were verified in 1847 by the surgeon from Connecticut more than fifty years passed before the Eastern gorillas specifically the mountain gorillas seen here the larger of the two species was successfully shot retrieved and therefore verified of the two species of gorilla each has two subspecies the western lowland gorilla and the cross river gorilla comprise the Western gorilla species and the eastern lowland gorilla and the mountain gorilla comprise the eastern gorilla species the Western gorilla seen here is an animal 30% smaller than its cousin to the East seen here and that's according to groves and Wilson's mammals species of the world a taxonomic and geographic reference as gorillas have variants sasquatch certainly must as well compare the species that reside in say Louisiana Texas and Florida and those in say Alberta true to this parallel I think size varies by approximately 30% as well and these numbers represent mature males in my opinion so in review we have a likely timeframe for a great ape discovery give or take two or three hundred years these things take time which is hard to see in the moment and that's because life is short but time is long it is rare for any one person or even generation see discovery because discovery is a process and in this case the discovery is the remaining surviving human family tree such an endeavor surely takes time next is cultural depictions and I think that's a fairly obvious one is it curious to anyone else that there were sketches of gorillas by Westerners before gorillas were proven to exist does that sound familiar and both apes are used as portrayals of our base desires bead benevolent or downright beastly remember consistency is key to reality the third parallel is often overlooked and that's the matter of basic anatomical precedence for a massive ape to live somewhere in the wilderness I spent a lot of time watching gorillas albeit in captivity but trust me a lot of time and they are monsters in their own right imagine a gorilla on two legs and you're already halfway to Sasquatch then we come to the condition of existing evidence you have the undeniable fact that primate remains are scarce numerous extinct species of hominids are defined by only a handful of teeth this is a fundamental understanding in physical anthropology due to the lifestyle of the primates the relatively small populations they have and the condition of their environments historically gorillas can only be quote proven by a total of nine teeth so as odd as this may sound the fossil record for gorillas is not so different than the fossil record for Sasquatch the similarity being that both are virtually non-existent there are many an identified primate dental remains why should some not belong to a predecessor of Bigfoot or even Bigfoot itself and then we come to the behavioral correlation between the two it seems to indicate a degree of intellect over instinct obviously with both species but super hyper magnified in the North American ape variety and then last but not least most interesting to me is species proliferation or speciall variation I think after an animal planet HD drone making a reality show about meerkats accidentally gets high-definition unequivocal and irrefutable footage of a sasquatch family group people may be even more surprised to find the corpse of a skunk ape washed up at the debris of a hurricane in Florida 25 years later to me gorillas seem to be the best verified analogue we have to Sasquatch either gorillas or humans but that is a bit too mind-boggling for me at the present moment it is fascinating to think though that a mere 200 years ago scholars skeptics travelers armchair researchers hunters and professors people just like you and me sat and probably argued about the reality of hairy man-like monsters who roam in the wild places of the world the ones who argued against gorillas they were wrong anyhow I hope you see the merit in comparing these two great apes and the understanding that both were considered a myth not so long ago just as both will be considered fact before too long and I uploaded this video on January 1st the first day of 2017 this just may be the year you never know and by the way if you want this year to be better than last year then make it it's your decision and while we hurry up and wait for more results regarding this creature make sure to LIKE this video subscribe if you'd like to see more thanks an awful lot for listening and seriously make this year better than your last year you owe yourself that much

Channel: Bob Gymlan

Views: 371,500

Rating: 4.7859898 out of 5

Keywords: bigfoot, bigfoot sighting, great apes, North American Great Ape, Sasquatch, Sasquatch Sighting, bigfoot reports, is bigfoot real?, best bigfoot evidence, bigfoot evidence, sasquatch evidence, real bigfoot, real sasquatch, squatch, dogman, bigfoot stories, sasquatch encounters, bigfoot news, true bigfoot story, cryptozoology, cryptid reports, Bob Gymlan, Bob Gimlin, native american bigfoot, jeff meldrum, les stroud bigfoot, survivorman sasquatch, BFRO, paranormal, monsters

Id: KuHB9Dkw8B0

Length: 19min 45sec (1185 seconds)

Published: Sun Jan 01 2017

Reddit Comments

[u/ctrlshiftkill]

I like that he does tend to present pretty reliable information, but it's important for bigfoot enthusiasts to recognize that he is not without bias. In this video he is perpetuating the fallacy the the circumstances surrounding the discovery of gorillas support the existence of bigfoot, which is not true. It is definitely important for scientists not to get complacent and assume that we already know everything that exists, of course. But just because there were many unconfirmed reports of gorillas before they were "discovered" by science, that does not mean that everything that has ever been seen actually exists. From around the same time period (and centuries before) that gorillas were only legendary, there were almost countless legendary humanlike or apelike creatures being reported by people all over the world, from mermaids to giants to cyclops. Some we now recognize as misidentifications, as mermaids were of manatees by sex-starved sailors; some were misinterpretations, as we think cyclops might have been of elephant skulls; some of them, like blemmyes, I don't even know. So I think it is disingenuous to cherrypick the data and say "See? We were right about gorillas before science 'discovered' them, therefore we are right about bigfoots too!". If you want to extrapolate from that data, it really points to the opposite conclusion: most legendary creatures people used to believe in have been discredited by science, so on the basis of statistics alone this line of reasoning does not support bigfoot existsing.

[u/Treedom_Lighter]

I really like this guy, thanks for posting. I've enjoyed every one of his videos I think.

[u/velezaraptor]

Finished this one last night, was going to post but then found your post. Why didn't hey teach this in history class?

[u/eaglejm]

The best comparison would be to the Giant Panda they were not known to western science until recenly, Roosevelt's kid shot one I believe.