hiflier Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 Does any one think that 'documentaries' sometimes lead people to view things in a way that are not true? As a case in point, the cabin in the Ape Canyon story documentary doesn't even look close to the real thing but then maybe it doesn't really matter? Thought I would ask.
BigTreeWalker Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 Documentaries usually include reenactments which are subject to the whims of the director. More for entertainment than actual fact. 1
hiflier Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 I guess you're right BigTreeWalker. One would think that a documentary would be researched to death to get things right though. The photo of the original cabin is and was available as it took me all of 10 seconds to find it. And since documentaries are supposedly striving for accuracy? IDK, maybe the director thought the original photo didn't look like the publics perception of a rustic cabin and so substituted a more iconic representation that more viewrs could identify with? Is it even important that the original photo is always accessible to the public? Probably wouldn't make much difference if it disappeared from the web altogether as the more 'favorable' and maybe acceptable look for a typical cabin will always be in the documentary. Yep, its a fine point put I think even little details such as this in an historical event should remain as part of the visual truth of a story. But that is just me, ol' hiflier, wishing people would stay as accurate as possible where the public's perception of things is concerned.
BigTreeWalker Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 Details are important. Stick to the details, don't exaggerate. If you can't figure it out, just present it as correct as possible. As far as I'm concerned most documentaries nowadays are simply entertainment.
SWWASAS Posted October 28, 2018 BFF Patron Posted October 28, 2018 As I said before the search for the cabin was more archeology field work than the search for some yet to be accepted species. But interestingly the finders used exactly the same methodology that archeologists are now using to find lost cities mentioned in the bible and other ancients texts. Many of the bible cities were considered myths. But careful reading and boots on the ground search is finding them one after another. Well perhaps that methodology can be used to find the long sought BF skeleton. We have many stories of BF shot and buried. If we could figure out where from what has been written, then perhaps those skeletons can be found. The miners reported that the body of the one shot at Ape Canyon was carried off. That and the subsequent 1980 eruption pretty much eliminates that dead BF. Thinking about old stories we have the Tarzan Springs story. Another prospector was living with several BF. Perhaps one of those died and was buried in the area? That area is even harder to get into than Ape Canyon. But maybe someone should check it out? Can anyone think of other stories where BF is shot, killed then buried? Many of these are so old the locations would be difficult to pin down. Well there is the Mt St Helens eruption story. Several BF were collected in one spot, and buried with heavy equipment. If there is any truth to it, those skeletons might be still viable in the volcanic ash. But that location likely it is in the National Monument or in Weyerhaeuser land Neither of which is likely to provide access.
Catmandoo Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 ^^^^ Acidic soils do not allow bones to preserve well.
norseman Posted October 28, 2018 Admin Author Posted October 28, 2018 19 minutes ago, Catmandoo said: ^^^^ Acidic soils do not allow bones to preserve well. Neither do volcanic eruptions that bury things under a 100 ft of mud and debris.
SWWASAS Posted October 28, 2018 BFF Patron Posted October 28, 2018 The soils around Pompeii seemed to preserve the victims of that eruption pretty well.
norseman Posted October 28, 2018 Admin Author Posted October 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: The soils around Pompeii seemed to preserve the victims of that eruption pretty well. If you know where to dig, yes. They found bones inside the body cavities in the ash. But Pompeii was a city. What are the odds they are going to find one Ape canyon Bigfoot skeleton underneath all that mud and debris? Where would you even start to dig? But with Ape canyon being to the south? And the main blast directed at the north? Maybe the area wasnt as affected as I think?
SWWASAS Posted October 28, 2018 BFF Patron Posted October 28, 2018 Unlike the Hawiian volcanoes Mt St Helens spews mostly ash. It is layers and layers of ash. The 1980 eruption was not even the biggest. As you can see below it is a frequent eruptor and is actually younger than the pyramids. Many of he eruptions likely suffocated BF and other animals living in the area. My trips to the mountain often include walking the streams and creeks seeing what is eroding out of the ash. For a volcano that spews basalt, anything that survives the 2000 degree temperatures would be encased in solid basalt. But the ash is soft and carved away every spring. No digging required but an incredible amount of luck to happen to be there when something erodes out. Areas now with BF populations are likely to have been that in the past and got some suffocated by the ash from some eruption. If BF buries their dead in some safe and stable place, it takes a natural calamity to kill and cover them to allow them to be found. Volcanoes, land slides, avalanches, are all such events. I think this protocol is more likely to succeed in a skeletal discovery than most anything other than shooting one. https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/103/ 2
norseman Posted October 28, 2018 Admin Author Posted October 28, 2018 22 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: Unlike the Hawiian volcanoes Mt St Helens spews mostly ash. It is layers and layers of ash. The 1980 eruption was not even the biggest. As you can see below it is a frequent eruptor and is actually younger than the pyramids. Many of he eruptions likely suffocated BF and other animals living in the area. My trips to the mountain often include walking the streams and creeks seeing what is eroding out of the ash. For a volcano that spews basalt, anything that survives the 2000 degree temperatures would be encased in solid basalt. But the ash is soft and carved away every spring. No digging required but an incredible amount of luck to happen to be there when something erodes out. Areas now with BF populations are likely to have been that in the past and got some suffocated by the ash from some eruption. If BF buries their dead in some safe and stable place, it takes a natural calamity to kill and cover them to allow them to be found. Volcanoes, land slides, avalanches, are all such events. I think this protocol is more likely to succeed in a skeletal discovery than most anything other than shooting one. https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/103/ Did it say anything about the fossils that have been found using this method?
Catmandoo Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 Animals sense impending disaster and run away. Only humans go towards volcanic activity and tsunamis to name a few. Can the animals detect radon gas? Don't know. Can they 'feel' strangeness through their feet? Probably. I have not checked on Schumann Frequency variations occurring before disasters. Could be interesting. SWWASAS has a good point about volcanoes. Different types of lava, ash and poisonous gases. Any one know the pH of Mt. St. Helens ash? If I remember correctly, Mt. St. Helens ash was used to make 'pumice' type hand soap. Anything in a basaltic lava flow or caught in a Lahar is in a mix-master from hell. Not a tranquil preservation procedure. Human/animal body would explode I think.
Recommended Posts