At this stage of the game you seem to be just playing different stages of "gotcha". So one Squatch researcher think's it's not an ape at all but a giant monkey, how does this strengthen your position? If Sasquatch is real? We have no idea what it is until one is laying on a examining table.
Native Americans never saw Sasquatch as truly human, we have gone over this multiple times.............their descriptive names for the creature bear this out. Most names include "Wild", "Hairy", "Giant", "Cannibal" and "Devil" and yes "Man". Their myths do not include having pow wows with them as they did other tribes, they saw them as scary, brutish, sneaky, wild and above all downright dangerous. But they had two arms, two legs and walked like men.........but that's where the similarities ended.
Paulides thinks he is dealing with a type of relic hominid. And he may very well be proven correct some day.........or not (I say no, because they exhibit no actions that warrant that description). This has nothing to do with our discussion. Nobody thinks we are dealing with a fellow Homo Sapiens Sapiens running naked around in the woods, with no tools, fire or shelter. That is covered in hair, 8 feet tall and has a 16 inch foot.......... are we on the same page?
Fred Beck's story is rather far fetched, I don't know what to make of it. But if we are dealing with just another tribe of Indians? Why didn't they just burn the miners out? And konk them on the heads as they exit the burning cabin? People describe rock throwing as a common Squatch trait, so the story isn't out of line there. But whatever. The main thrust of this story that you must parry is why did miners in the cascades think they were being attacked by apes? Long before the news of the Yeti broke to the west, and before Green was even born............
If that story broke today and the finding bigfoot team went up into the mountains and found some tracks in the vicinity of the cabin, it would be all the rage........that's were technology comes in like I've been discussing with you. People from all over the planet would read of it within days.
Back then? Yes of course it was newspaper worthy probably on a regional level and that was that..........but that doesn't support your Yeti>Green>ape invention hypothesis either.
I have no idea who this Squatch investigator was back in the forties........but if he was investigating Ruby creek?
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/ruby.htm
Where would he get the idea that he was dealing with an ape?
They thought it was a cow, then a bear (sound familiar?) and then a 7.5 ft tall hairy giant..........that had a small head, no neck and very long arms. It also reportedly lifted a 55 gallon barrel of fish.......not human like qualities would you agree?
If she thought this was a tall Indian? Why didn't she greet him at the door?
Let's say for the sake of discussion that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is a real creature roaming the forests. From a scientific standpoint what traits do they reportedly exhibit that would make you think we were dealing with a fellow Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Do they reportedly flake stone? The hand axe is over one million years old. Do they make fire? Our genus has been making fire for hundreds of thousands of years. If they were just another tribe of Indian? Why weren't they shooting flaming arrow's at Beck's cabin? Why did the miner's claim they were attacked by apes? Why didn't Mrs. Chapman open her front door and invite this "tall Indian" into her home?
Surely you can see the discrepancies between what is reported then, and what your claiming Sasquatch was prior Green's involvement.