Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris,

Try going to this site.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/index.htm

It is full of research on NA stories that were completed mostly prior to 1930 (pre-bigfoot craze) Please find a story that is about bigfoot and show us.

If you look around enough, you will find a comparison of characters across tribes. The only NA legend that is common to every tribe is "little people" and yet nobody seems to believe in them. Why would one tribe have a "Bigfoot" legend, but the next doesn't? Shouldn't they all know about footie? The NA legend thing is entirely bogus. Again, I challenge you to find one story that really equates to today's vision of Bigfoot.

First, before assigning homework, you'll need to provide a link that is a complete listing of ALL Native American tribes and their associated legends. After a brief review, your link does not do so.

I've not done much research trying to tie Native American legends in with Bigfoot as it doesn't apply to my current work. I've looked into a few but I claim to know very little about most tribes as I've not done the work.

The only real NA research I've done was family related. But, if I did choose to research Native American legends in detail as they apply to Bigfoot or not, for purposes like a book project, I'd certainly use several references to include all NA tribes.

You provided a link to a few antique references but it would be kinda important to include every tribe in such a work, would it not? Omitting books on entire tribes is a kinda crooked way to do a valid investigation wouldn't you say? Unless you had a preconceived outcome for your investigation.

I realize and agree many NA legends have been hijacked to include Bigfoot. Some descriptions of NA mythological figures have absolutely nothing to do with Bigfoot. As to why you would choose to only research a few books from the early 1900's with many missing references of certain tribes altogether? Is it because you think Bigfoot has corrupted all NA legends? Or is it suspect that Bigfoot be mentioned by some tribes and yet fail to be mentioned by others?

It rather strongly suggests that there's no such thing as bigfoot. That's why I brought it up. Even among people who claimed that they did worship their bigfoot (yeti) and did keep its precious relics enshrined, said relics are proven forgeries.


So the bigfoots you've seen Chris, did they look like the face in that mask? Did they have long hair? Bright red lips? Come to think of it, what do you know about that mask? How old is it and what is its provenance? How do we know it's not a recent carving meant to profit from bigfoot mythology rather than an actual artifact of that mythology?

Is the thinking here that people only create realism in art? If so, I've got some questions about . . .

this

this

this

and this.


As you can see, the point of artifacts with the ability to make the case for bigfoot is not whether we can apply our preconceptions to a drawing, mask, etc. and say "Hey, that face looks vaguely apelike" or " . . . just like a Gray alien" or whatever. The key would be to examine the materials from which such artifacts are made.

For example, here is Osage chief Shinga-Wassa wearing a headdress adorned with Ivory-billed Woodpecker bills (sometimes traded for 2–3 buckskins each).

grizzly claw necklace.

abalone earrings

golden eagle tail feathers

I'm not a NA cultural expert. I can recognize an apelike similarity in the facial expression, the pouting of the lips specifically. Chimpanzees are particularly fond of this pouting feature especially when upset.

From what I understand the mask is supposed to represent Dzunuwa , "the Wild Woman of the Woods".

Dzunuwa is described as having a hairy body, pendulous breasts, and purses her lips when she makes her cry: "uu huu uu". (exactly like a chimpanzee BTW) She has long, wild hair and wears a large basket on her back to carry away unwary children that she finds in her travels. With exception of the basket, these features seem to relate to the "biological".

The info comes from this site:

http://www.umista.org/masks_story/en/ht/tsekaDzunukwa.html

She was also believed to have some magic water that could revive the dead.
Which I agree relates to the "mystical" more than the biological. But with Bigfoot and Native American legend, it's not uncommon to see the biological and mystical together.

Admittedly at first I mistakenly thought it was the mask of Misignwa due to the red and black coloration, but the pouting lips and long hair features seem to suggest it's more likely Dzunuwa "The Wild Woman of the Woods".

As I said, I'm not a NA cultural expert in any way. I have a very limited working knowledge. So if I'm wrong in my interpretation feel free to correct me. I will say I have read that the Misignwa legend as being claimed to compare to Bigfoot is only present in the Northern Shawnee tribes. Other tribes may not hold the same opinion as to the Misignwa legend as it relates to Bigfoot. Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

That's a lot of words for "I was wrong and posted a photo of a mask created in 2005 as evidence for something Native Americans did hundreds of years ago."

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not a NA cultural expert.

Well it's sorta hard to become an expert in anything when all you do is learn just enough about a topic to convince yourself it supports your delusion and then stick your fingers in your ears going "La la la la" when someone else points out that it doesn't.

 

[The Shrike]

Sure Chris, but don't you see how you're shoehorning your modern conception of "bigfoot" onto the mask and the Wild Woman legend? You're conflating the pant-hooting display* of real chimpanzees with an obvious human (e.g., long hair, weaves baskets) mythical figure. Bigfoots aren't chimps and they don't make baskets, so that mask really has nothing to do with bigfoot.

Just like the other masks to which I linked are not faithful representations of living creatures, you can't dig up a piece of art, think it looks like something, and have any confidence that the subjective resemblance means that the artist was familiar with a real creature that looked just like that.

Thus, the kind of artifacts that matter would be unambiguous - they would be made of bigfoot not made to look like what some people think a bigfoot might have kinda looked like.

See the difference?



*I know I have a dirty mind, but I see those masks with the big hole for the mouth and all I can think of is some kind of ceremony that includes a "glory hole."

 

[Resume]

. Other tribes may not hold the same opinion as to the Misignwa legend as it relates to Bigfoot. Chris B.

No tribal legend relate to footie; that's an invention of the white guy. Unless you can produce some sort of ape artifact that doesn't require tremendous effort in interpretation, I call ********. Sasquatch as a wild man in the woods, well, nearly every culture in the world has one of those legends.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This is like a lotto ticket.

You have no idea what it is from, yet you took it, hoping it might be the Sasquatch spit. Now you are waiting for the DNA to break down, so that when you do send it in, it will come back inconclusive, and won't say Raccoon. If it says Raccoon you lose, if it says inconclusive you win. You throw Bigfoot into that 'inconclusive' gap, and Phi Slamma Jamma, you have a slam dunk into the Bigfoot elite.

That's one way of looking at it. Another may be that I'm waiting for a type specimen to find an exact match. What good is "unknown DNA" ? The answer is it's no good for anything other than speculation until you can match it with something in the bank.

But the main way of looking at it is: It would be irresponsible to submit a sample for testing unless you knew for sure exactly what that sample came from before submission. This sample does not qualify. Chris B.

 

[Craig4]

That's one way of looking at it. Another may be that I'm waiting for a type specimen to find an exact match. What good is "unknown DNA" ? The answer is it's no good for anything other than speculation until you can match it with something in the bank.

But the main way of looking at it is: It would be irresponsible to submit a sample for testing unless you knew for sure exactly what that sample came from before submission. This sample does not qualify. Chris B.

You can't be serious. Intact DNA that's inconclusive would do nothing but support your Bigfoot hypothesis. It seems pretty clear you can't handle the idea that you salvia sample could just be from a raccoon.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Sure Chris, but don't you see how you're shoehorning your modern conception of "bigfoot" onto the mask and the Wild Woman legend? You're conflating the pant-hooting display* of real chimpanzees with an obvious human (e.g., long hair, weaves baskets) mythical figure. Bigfoots aren't chimps and they don't make baskets, so that mask really has nothing to do with bigfoot.

Just like the other masks to which I linked are not faithful representations of living creatures, you can't dig up a piece of art, think it looks like something, and have any confidence that the subjective resemblance means that the artist was familiar with a real creature that looked just like that.

Thus, the kind of artifacts that matter would be unambiguous - they would be made of bigfoot not made to look like what some people think a bigfoot might have kinda looked like.

See the difference?



*I know I have a dirty mind, but I see those masks with the big hole for the mouth and all I can think of is some kind of ceremony that includes a "glory hole."

The only suggestion I make is that some of the physical descriptions match. Again, I agree many of the NA legends have been stretched to include Bigfoot when they're obviously not. I see the description of a hairy body wild woman which by way of the description of the breasts hanging down seems to suggest no clothing. The facial expression on the mask is also curious to me. I concentrate on those points and you concentrate on the basket. I will agree it is unlikely Bigfoot would carry around a basket, but the body description does raise an eyebrow. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You can't be serious. Intact DNA that's inconclusive would do nothing but support your Bigfoot hypothesis. It seems pretty clear you can't handle the idea that you salvia sample could just be from a raccoon.

So when did inconclusive DNA results prove Bigfoot exists?
It didn't and it doesn't prove anything. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I've always thought the "knowers" suffer from some sort of weird self centered bigfoot narrcissm. Everytime they step in the woods bigfoot knows they are there. Bigfoots got nothing better to do but wait till they show up.
They are the "chosen" ones Bigfoot interacts with....it's very prevalent at BFF.

I've always thought anyone who claimed they had regular contact with Bigfoot every time they went to the woods, whenever they choose, for as long as they choose was definitely full of crap. It simply doesn't work that way.
Chris B.

 

[The Shrike]

I see the description of a hairy body wild woman which by way of the description of the breasts hanging down seems to suggest no clothing. The facial expression on the mask is also curious to me. I concentrate on those points and you concentrate on the basket. I will agree it is unlikely Bigfoot would carry around a basket, but the body description does raise an eyebrow. Chris B.

Thanks for continuing to avoid the salient point (no bigfoot PARTS).

As for your mask, it doesn't show a hairy woman, it depicts a figure with long hair and an apparent hairless face. It's human. Since when does an explanation of bigfoot become more plausible than that of a human female with a bare torso?

There's a brow Chris, but it's not raised. It's quite deeply furrowed.

 

[The Shrike]

whenever they choose, for as long as they choose was definitely full of crap. It simply doesn't work that way.
Chris B.

Do you mean they're overflowing with crap?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Thanks for continuing to avoid the salient point (no bigfoot PARTS).

As for your mask, it doesn't show a hairy woman, it depicts a figure with long hair and an apparent hairless face. It's human. Since when does an explanation of bigfoot become more plausible than that of a human female with a bare torso?
There's a brow Chris, but it's not raised. It's quite deeply furrowed.

I cannot address the specific reason Native Americans did not have or worship Bigfoot parts. I can only speculate as before.

I wasn't basing my entire opinion of only the mask, but more specifically, the description of the individual the mask was to portray. That boobular "torso" was listed as being "hairy" Chris B.

 

[Giordano]

That's one way of looking at it. Another may be that I'm waiting for a type specimen to find an exact match. What good is "unknown DNA" ? The answer is it's no good for anything other than speculation until you can match it with something in the bank.

But the main way of looking at it is: It would be irresponsible to submit a sample for testing unless you knew for sure exactly what that sample came from before submission. This sample does not qualify. Chris B.

Absolutely incorrect. In this case, you are trying to prove the existence of an unknown species. The DNA in your possession would, if really Bigfoot's, convincingly establish the existence of Bigfoot when analyzed. For your claim, it would not matter where or from what you obtained this DNA; only that on analysis it would be shown to be a previously unknown primate.

It might next be interesting to know where to find a living specimen, but obtaining the money and personnel to help do this next step would be much easier once the initial DNA testing proved that such an unknown organism existed.

If you are very uncertain if this is Bigfoot DNA or not, then perhaps you are unwilling to invest the money to have it actually tested (although that suggests that you yourself have a lot of doubts, so I wonder why you are discussing it here at all).

But first, I would suggest that if you really think that it may be Bigfoot DNA, then the cost of having it initially tested would be small compared to the costs of your other Bigfoot investigations. Think about it: you might already have the strong proof you claim to seek in a small vial in your house! And an initial DNA analysis, even commercially performed, is relatively inexpensive.

Second, I suspect that I can find people at my University willing to do at least initial DNA testing for cost (almost free). Would you be willing to mail me a sample of your Bigfoot DNA if I can find someone to do these tests?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Making stuff up whole and out of nothing is not speculating.

 

[Giordano]

I've always thought anyone who claimed they had regular contact with Bigfoot every time they went to the woods, whenever they choose, for as long as they choose was definitely full of crap. It simply doesn't work that way.
Chris B.

Yes, I agree: such people are among the Bigfoot fans who are full of crap.

 

[Giordano]

I'm not a NA cultural expert. I can recognize an apelike similarity in the facial expression, the pouting of the lips specifically. Chimpanzees are particularly fond of this pouting feature especially when upset.

From what I understand the mask is supposed to represent Dzunuwa , "the Wild Woman of the Woods".

Dzunuwa is described as having a hairy body, pendulous breasts, and purses her lips when she makes her cry: "uu huu uu". (exactly like a chimpanzee BTW) She has long, wild hair and wears a large basket on her back to carry away unwary children that she finds in her travels. With exception of the basket, these features seem to relate to the "biological".

The info comes from this site:

http://www.umista.org/masks_story/en/ht/tsekaDzunukwa.html

She was also believed to have some magic water that could revive the dead.
Which I agree relates to the "mystical" more than the biological. But with Bigfoot and Native American legend, it's not uncommon to see the biological and mystical together.

Admittedly at first I mistakenly thought it was the mask of Misignwa due to the red and black coloration, but the pouting lips and long hair features seem to suggest it's more likely Dzunuwa "The Wild Woman of the Woods".

As I said, I'm not a NA cultural expert in any way. I have a very limited working knowledge. So if I'm wrong in my interpretation feel free to correct me. I will say I have read that the Misignwa legend as being claimed to compare to Bigfoot is only present in the Northern Shawnee tribes. Other tribes may not hold the same opinion as to the Misignwa legend as it relates to Bigfoot. Chris B.

I don't see where you responded to the statement that the mask is a modern one, if by a Native American, and thus has nothing to do with proving that the NAs believed in Bigfoot in pre-Columbian times.

Even if the mask is supposed to be a representation of a legendary figure, that of "the wild woman of the woods" and even if it was ancient, I don't see how that would be any proof of the existence of Bigfoot. I have seen paintings of King Arthur and his round table. I have seen paintings of Zeus. I have seen statues of dragons. I have even seen dragons (with sneakered feet under them) at Chinese New Year. Why would any art representations of legendary figures be any evidence for the actual reality of that figure?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Absolutely incorrect. In this case, you are trying to prove the existence of an unknown species. The DNA in your possession would, if really Bigfoot's, convincingly establish the existence of Bigfoot when analyzed. For your claim, it would not matter where or from what you obtained this DNA; only that on analysis it would be shown to be a previously unknown primate.

It might next be interesting to know where to find a living specimen, but obtaining the money and personnel to help do this next step would be much easier once the initial DNA testing proved that such an unknown organism existed.

If you are very uncertain if this is Bigfoot DNA or not, then perhaps you are unwilling to invest the money to have it actually tested (although that suggests that you yourself have a lot of doubts, so I wonder why you are discussing it here at all).

But first, I would suggest that if you really think that it may be Bigfoot DNA, then the cost of having it initially tested would be small compared to the costs of your other Bigfoot investigations. Think about it: you might already have the strong proof you claim to seek in a small vial in your house! And an initial DNA analysis, even commercially performed, is relatively inexpensive.

Second, I suspect that I can find people at my University willing to do at least initial DNA testing for cost (almost free). Would you be willing to mail me a sample of your Bigfoot DNA if I can find someone to do these tests?

It's unworthy of testing at this time as it's not a valid sample. I did not actually see the Bigfoot deposit the saliva so it remains invalid. The circumstances under which it was collected warrant keeping the sample for later testing. Before I put my name to anything submitted for testing at this point it will have to be known to me as a 100% valid sample. And even then I'm not mailing anything out to anyone. Evidence for any submission will be hand delivered by me as chain of custody is very important in these matters. Chris B.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah out of all the mythical creatures that have been part of cultures since time immemorial why are Figboots the only just have to existed?

Or did porcupines eat the bones of all the Hydras and Dragons and Unicorns as well?

 

[Pterodactyl]

Wow. More excuses. What a surprise.