Replies

Even more interesting are reports of the Mountain Gorilla in the late 19th century that were discounted by most Western zoologists even though the natives spoke of the creatures. [...] Anyways, Sasquatch is probably imagination only.

It is odd that you feel that way, especially since the Injuns ALL admit to Sasquatch, dating far before the establishment of the US. I know these folks first hand (Salish (Kootenai), Flatheads, Blackfeet, and a few N.Cheyenne). Why are these natives' observations discounted?

And I can personally attest to the bare fact that my own eyes have witnessed more than 'imagination'.

What is odd about that? I did not say I discouted the native accounts, simply that western zoologists discounted them (foolishly). I find it very foolish to instantly discard the views of people who have lived in an area. A particular example of personal interest deals with a certain snake in Africa that lived around where I stayed in my youth called a Boomslang. The Boomslang is a very slender long snake with a roundish head and large eyes, and some decades back Western herpetologists used to say it was totally harmless and had no fangs nor venom. The Africans used to say it was extremely lethal if it bit you. Obviously their views were discarded the 'knowledgeable' herpetologists. Then the most famous herpetologist of the day got bit by a Boomslang, and had a very painful death (bleeding from every orifice, urine turned black, etc). It turned out that the Boomslang is venomous (drop for drop more than the Black Mamba's neurotoxic venom, which is around 80 times more toxic than a rattlesnakes), has considerably long fangs (only that it is a backfanged snake with it's fangs back at the end of it's jaws), and the Africans were correct. Only when Ionades (I cannot recall his exact name) died did they realize that slender pretty snake had punch.

Consequently, I cannot see any reason to blindly discount the views of natives.