Merged Bigfoot follies

[Cervelo]

Trust me folks for Chris it was an epic hike, to the deep scary woods of Kentucky!
He heard things I didn't, mistakes tree stumps for who knows what, and got to make contact with (in his mind) ghostbusters.
Even stayed out in the woods after dark!!!!
I'm just glad I got to be part of it, the whole thing was a fantastic glimpse into the mind of a hardcore footer and the world they create for themselves.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Rubbish. Who's "We"? The Chinese knew about pandas before Linneaus was glimmer in his great-great-great . . . great grandfather's eye.

You're parroting more crypto-bovine excrement rather than actually thinking about what you're writing.

Wiki: "the Empress Dowager Bo was buried [in 155 BC] with a panda skull in her vault."

" . . . the use of panda pelts to control menses as described in the Qin Dynasty encyclopedia Erya" [3rd Century BC]

As for the Western discovery, how did that go down? Well, it was Pere David - the French missionary commissioned by his government to collect all manner of biological specimens for natural history collections in France - to whom that first pelt was supplied by a local hunter in 1869.

Crypto-fail! David was essentially France's Lewis and Clark in China: "Father David summed up his labours in an address delivered before the International Scientific Congress of Catholics at Paris in April, 1888. He had found in China all together 200 species of wild animals, of which 63 were hitherto unknown to zoologists, and 807 species of birds, 65 of which had not been described before."

So again, what appears to the FIRST Westerner in a foreign land with an eye toward natural history was given a specimen of an unknown species by one of the locals. Sound familiar? (Cough "gorilla!")

Who cares that "we" didn't catch a live panda until decades later? We already had proof they existed. This is the same tripe that influences the simple-minded when giant squid are discussed. No, we had not photographed one live until a few years ago, but freakin' Aristotle examined a carcass. Don't even get me started on the panda fossil record.

But none of those finds accounted for anything until there was a type specimen collected. That is when "we" of the Western World accepted them to exist.

If you wish to now site ancient writings as evidence of a real creature now, be careful. Bigfoot is included in that club. In particular the writings of Leif Erikson. Leif told of seeing huge hairy men who towered over him and his Berzerker crew. The "huge hairy men", according to Leif, lived in the Woods and had a rank odor and a deafening shriek.

So which is it?
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

What I see in your posts is someone who is still miffed at me because I banned them at the BFF when I was an Admin there. Chris B.

What a bizarre thing to say. I never belonged to that forum and I certainly never have been banned from any online discussion anywhere.

 

[dmaker]

But none of those finds accounted for anything until there was a type specimen collected. That is when "we" of the Western World accepted them to exist.

If you wish to now site ancient writings as evidence of a real creature now, be careful. Bigfoot is included in that club. In particular the writings of Leif Erikson. Leif told of seeing huge hairy men who towered over him and his Berzerker crew. The "huge hairy men", according to Leif, lived in the Woods and had a rank odor and a deafening shriek.

So which is it?
Chris B.

My, you are fond of your straw men. That is hardly what is being argued. In the case of the panda there is a fossil record, there are artifacts as well as a written historical record. All of these match up to an extant, discovered animal today. What does it matter when western civ finally put their hands on one? Try some modern context. There is no way that given the evidence available that the panda would not inevitably be found or declared extinct. Eventually at some point, it would be declared extinct ( due to absence of evidence), or it would be found. And this is precisely what happened. A creature with a fossil record, physical remains, and a written history.


Can you, or anyone, produce one iota of physical evidence for what you think Erikson was describing? No? pity...

 

[Resume]

Maybe you should review your posts to determine if your contribution has been discussion or ridicule and insult.
Chris B.

Again with the martyr card. Please.

 

[Resume]

But none of those finds accounted for anything until there was a type specimen collected. That is when "we" of the Western World accepted them to exist.

Not even remotely analogous.

If you wish to now site ancient writings as evidence of a real creature now, be careful. Bigfoot is included in that club. In particular the writings of Leif Erikson. Leif told of seeing huge hairy men who towered over him and his Berzerker crew. The "huge hairy men", according to Leif, lived in the Woods and had a rank odor and a deafening shriek.
So which is it?
Chris B.

Which is what? Another boogeyman story? So what?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Trust me folks for Chris it was an epic hike, to the deep scary woods of Kentucky!
He heard things I didn't, mistakes tree stumps for who knows what, and got to make contact with (in his mind) ghostbusters.
Even stayed out in the woods after dark!!!!
I'm just glad I got to be part of it, the whole thing was a fantastic glimpse into the mind of a hardcore footer and the world they create for themselves.

Just to confirm: neither of you said anything about needing flashlights or lanterns, and he originally said it was "getting dark" when you met those people.

So no flashlights or lanterns, right?

That was still an interesting "tell" carlitos. So he is a former moderator at BFF.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Trust me folks for Chris it was an epic hike, to the deep scary woods of Kentucky!
He heard things I didn't, mistakes tree stumps for who knows what, and got to make contact with (in his mind) ghostbusters.
Even stayed out in the woods after dark!!!!
I'm just glad I got to be part of it, the whole thing was a fantastic glimpse into the mind of a hardcore footer and the world they create for themselves.

Oops, you forgot to mention a few things. Let me help.

You did not know what a deer scrape is or what it's used for.(or perhaps you were testing me....right)
You would have walked all over a full grown buck without ever noticing it (likely until it ran for cover at the last possible moment) You yourself proclaimed "good eye" when you finally saw the buck in your binoculars.
You picked up a turkey feather and proclaimed it to be "red tail hawk". While I said only "turkey".

So I ask you, since you make such a big deal of me stopping because I saw a stump out of the corner of my eye while we were walking and talking. Did I make anything out of it? Or did I say "stump" and laugh?
Was there a deer? Was that not a turkey feather? Was that not a deer scrape? Did we not see the buck and doe that likely accounted for it. Were there not two black cases on top of that blue cooler?

I don't claim to have been in good health that day. I told you why. Why the need to make such a big deal out of it? I have never claimed to be the "physical outdoor type". But I do get out at least 3 times a week during the Bigfoot seasonal activity here.

The fact is somehow you need to label me a "novice" outdoorsman afraid of the dark, jumping at every little tweet and chirp. We both know you're not in a position to judge any of my abilities. Fact is you don't know a turkey feather when you're looking at it and it steams you that I do. Live and learn.
Chris B.

 

[tsig]

Don't play the martyr card, not after that "cowards" post.

Poor footers, scared of what they want to find.

(to the tune of shrimp boats is a'coming)
Bigfoot is a-comin'
Their eyes are in sight
Bigfoot is a-comin'
There's runnin' tonight
Why don't-cha hurry, hurry, hurry home
Why don't-cha hurry, hurry, hurry home
Look here! The bigfoot is a-comin'
There's runnin' tonight

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not even remotely analogous.


Which is what? Another boogeyman story? So what?

Are we to take ancient writings about Pandas into account and say "we knew about them back then" yet leave out similar ancient writings when they apply to Bigfoot? So which is it? Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

My, you are fond of your straw men. That is hardly what is being argued. In the case of the panda there is a fossil record, there are artifacts as well as a written historical record. All of these match up to an extant, discovered animal today. What does it matter when western civ finally put their hands on one? Try some modern context. There is no way that given the evidence available that the panda would not inevitably be found or declared extinct. Eventually at some point, it would be declared extinct ( due to absence of evidence), or it would be found. And this is precisely what happened. A creature with a fossil record, physical remains, and a written history.


Can you, or anyone, produce one iota of physical evidence for what you think Erikson was describing? No? pity...

No biological evidence at this time. Doesn't mean there never will be. The comparison is in the account. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Are we to take ancient writings about Pandas into account and say "we knew about them back then" yet leave out similar ancient writings when they apply to Bigfoot? So which is it? Chris B.

Did you even read The Shrike's post?

What does a living, breathing, actual creature that was shown to live exactly where alleged, have to do with a creature that is exactly nowhere it's alleged?

Now, ancient writings about boogeyman and bigfoot, yeah, that's analogous all right, exactly on the mark.

Do you have a bigfoot?

Do you know where to get a bigfoot?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

In particular the writings of Leif Erikson. Leif told of seeing huge hairy men who towered over him and his Berzerker crew. The "huge hairy men", according to Leif, lived in the Woods and had a rank odor and a deafening shriek.


Chris B.

Leif Erikson left us no writings. The sagas were written hundreds of years after he died, and neither of the ones mentioning him tells such a story.

By all means, show where they do.

 

[William Parcher]

Did American Indians write down descriptions of Bigfoot hundreds of years ago?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What a bizarre thing to say. I never belonged to that forum and I certainly never have been banned from any online discussion anywhere.

That could be true or it could be false. I suppose it's just a big coincidence and your preoccupation with my posts on this forum is just another such coincidence.

Some of the guys here with similar gripes would be surprised to learn I actually went to bat for most of them with the other Admins, but was outvoted in cases where the evidence for banishment was undeniable. There are only a few cases I felt the individual did not deserve a second chance. As was the case in this current coincidence. Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

The writings of Leif Erickson? Ha. Maybe he's thinking of Leif Garrett.

 

[carlitos]

That could be true or it could be false. I suppose it's just a big coincidence and your preoccupation with my posts on this forum is just another such coincidence.



Some of the guys here with similar gripes would be surprised to learn I actually went to bat for most of them with the other Admins, but was outvoted in cases where the evidence for banishment was undeniable. There are only a few cases I felt the individual did not deserve a second chance. As was the case in this current coincidence. Chris B.

What's a huge coincidence? What "similar gripes?

I have no idea what you mean. I only ever heard of that place from the posters here. I probably never even thought about Bigfoot from when I was a kid until a few years ago. I didn't even watch Harry and the Hendersons. You are on the wrong track.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Leif Erikson left us no writings. The sagas were written hundreds of years after he died, and neither of the ones mentioning him tells such a story.

By all means, show where they do.

I'm sure you can search the writings of Samuel Eliot Morison without my help.
Chris B.

 

[Castro]

Which is what? Another boogeyman story? So what?

Which actually is a Peter Byrne's invention based on a Samuel Eliot Morison’s interpretation of the sagas:
http://skepticalhumanities.com/2012/10/13/for-the-love-of-yeti-bigfooters-read-a-primary-source/

...It would take a huge amount of determination and delusion to find Bigfoot in Morison’s account. The Skrælings (the word actually used in the sagas) speak, use weapons (arrows and some sort of catapult), row and presumably build boats made out of animal skin. They also bring a variety of animal pelts to trade. All this is clear from Morison’s account.

As for the description of the Skrælings which inspired Byrne to think of Bigfoot, it’s a pretty close paraphrase of a description in Eric’s Saga: "Þeir váru svartir menn ok illiligir ok höfðu illt hár á höfði. Þeir váru mjök eygðir ok breiðir í kinnum." (chap. 10) This can be translated as, “They were dark men and ill-looking and had bad hair on their heads. They were large-eyed and broad-cheeked” (my translation). “Illt,” used to describe the Skrælings’ hair, can mean “ill, evil, bad; hard, difficult; close, mean, stingy.” Magnus Magnusson and Herman Pálsson translate it as “coarse.” So the excessive hairiness that so fascinated Byrne is just hair that the Norse considered ugly. And it’s not body hair: the description says they had bad hair on their heads. This description comes from the manuscript Hauksbók. The other manuscript Skálholtsbók, describes the Skrælings as smáir, small, rather than svartir, black or dark. So the huge, hairy, bigfooty Skrælings were neither large nor particularly hairy.

So how did humans become Bigfoot? Well, first Morison retold the sagas in a slightly odd way. Byrne seized on one word and ignored everything else Morison said, while making several mistakes. Others have dismissed Byrne’s reservations but repeated his mistakes, while adding their own (anyone who uses the word “Skellring” has clearly gotten their information from Byrne, either directly or indirectly). The same mistakes get repeated religiously until they become established fact. And no one, not even Byrne, bothers to look at the actual sagas.

Well, almost no one. One poster at Bigfoot Forums has almost restored my faith in humans. In a thread called “Best Bigfoot Documentaries,” spasticskeptic warns, “Ancient Mysteries” repeats the arguably mistaken claim that the earliest known alleged sightings of hairy manlike beasts in the New World go back to 900-something A.D., with “Leif Erickson and his men.” The textual evidence that they quote is just one English translation, and it differs markedly from nearly all other English translations of this material with respect to the issue at hand. Consult the myriad English translations of the early Norse explorations/settlements of North America and this notion that the Norse encountered “hair-covered manlike beasts” pretty much disappears. I looked into to this at length some years ago because to my mind the quotes in the A&E special were especially promising in terms of establishing a historical record of alleged sightings. Thus, I learned the hard way (through old school research) that the translation quoted by A&E is aberrant.

See, Bigfooters, there are books that aren’t about Bigfoot. Some of them are instructive and entertaining. It is possible to read primary sources and, you know, learn stuff...

 

[Macgyver1968]

No biological evidence at this time. Doesn't mean there never will be. The comparison is in the account. Chris B.

Seriously?...in 400 years of Europeans living in this country and not one single body...you seriously hold out hope?


Serious delusions.