• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the time I type something...five more posts have been made! Is the argument that Kodiak Island have no modern sightings or that there are no myths from there? One explaination for a lack of myths would be that the people on Kodiak Islands didn't get all their stories recorded by white folks, so therefore we don't have a record today (even though they may have had them) or the stories were recorded but are still laying somewhere in some ethnographic field notes.

That makes sense to me.

The Nawao and Menehune are well-known Polynesian stories. Unless I am mistaken, the stories are not related to actual sightings but rather as an explanation for features on the islands that the new inhabitants couldn't otherwise explain (why they are called an ancient race, meaning they were never seen, just their artifacts). This is in contract to most U.S. tribes stories that include descriptions and behaviors of something they claim they saw on a regular basis.

Skeptics are saying that modern Bigfoot sightings are not actual sightings. It doesn't matter much if a Bigfooter doesn't see the Bigfoot; because they are claiming tree breaks and thrown rocks, etc. as "evidence" of Bigfoot.
 
....People may be thrown by the name translation of "Otter Man" but we all know there are issues with translating languages (not to mention Tlingit). My favorite so far is is the Nelchina word Gilyuk - a horrible huge hairy, smelly, bigoot-like creature who's name in English means "Big Man with little hat"...figure that one out!

The Nelchina Basin is my favorite stomping ground up here.

Most of it is not very good sasquatch habitat, at least in the areas I go. Along the river drainages and ring of mountains which enclose the basin (especially the Chugach Range to the south)?

Yup.
 
Huntster is simply a liar, imo. Kushtaka does not mean sasquatch and he cannot show that it does.

He must prove that kushtaka means sasquatch before he can ask his questions.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone outside of footery claim that kushtaka is sasquatch?

Yes, the tribe themselves. Want to call them liars too? You are completely out of line. Kushtaka is a well-known and supported term for bigfoot. I don't know what you have read, but I would suggest that you obtain an accurate enthnography of the Tlingit (and in case you want to call me names too, I am a professional anthropologist and pretty much know, when it comes to tribal lore, what I'm talking about).
 
That, sir, is a claim. Please link to those "reasonable answers", and please especially post a link to my "satisfaction".

It sorta starts around post #90 in this thread. You seemed to be satisfied that nobody can provide a definitive answer better than anyone else.

Your motivation (then and now) for posing the PWI/Kodiak question appears to be an attempt to cut the feet out from under the idea that Bigfoot is a traditional myth. It looks like you are expecting oral tradition (or folk-support of oral tradition) to be evenly dispersed everywhere. It's like you are trying to show that oral tradition is not a valid explanation (for Bigfoot) if it is absent from a location.
 
Yes, the tribe themselves. Want to call them liars too? You are completely out of line. Kushtaka is a well-known and supported term for bigfoot. I don't know what you have read, but I would suggest that you obtain an accurate enthnography of the Tlingit (and in case you want to call me names too, I am a professional anthropologist and pretty much know, when it comes to tribal lore, what I'm talking about).

Support your claim. I didn't just get off the bus. Who says kushtaka means bigfoot? Where is kushtaka described as bigfoot?

I've had this discussion too many times already.

It's ridiculous.
 
Forget the amusement part for now. Hoaxes can provide valuable information. If someone creates a fake trackway and a "Bigfoot investigator" declares it legitimate, then we all learn that the investigator is incapable of determining real from fake (see the title of this thread). In that sense, each hoax is a kind of experiment.

Investigators such as Meldrum, Green and Krantz have carved feet and done experiments to determine just what kind of prints they do make. This is considerably cheaper than jumping into the Jeeps to drive hundreds of miles to see what kind of job a hoaxer can do. If hoaxers were to be under threat of, say, boiling in oil, they might not be a need to tell the difference. Of course, capital punishment never stopped murder, so maybe it wouldn't help much, except to take some hoaxers out of the population.

Remember the bus driver that swore he pursued a stinking Bigfoot. That was a hoax. We all learned that a reserve Vancouver city police officer (the driver) thought that a guy in the suit was a real Bigfoot. We all now know that police officers can be wrong about Bigfoot.

No we don't. That was a well-executed hoax, by the way, with prints (16, wasn't it?) and walkie-talkies. What the driver reported running into certainly doesn't sound like a normal human being in a suit. His intent was to unmask the guy and he was chasing after him, so why would he suddenly become that afraid?

Dahinden asked if a real Bigfoot could have shown up just at that time. He seemed to be serious.

Just how many hoaxes like that have there been? The perpetrators came forward. We even had a poster on BFF confess to being part of it.

But what about the smell he reported? "The first thing I noticed was the smell...a horrible smell like very rotten meat..."

Could have been a dead animal nearby. Maybe he was so scared he had a moment of fight or flight reflex, like Dr. Johnson reported.

If the guy in the suit wasn't carrying rotten meat, then what are we supposed to think of that claim? Is it even possible that the police officer busdriver lied about the smell to make it more believable? Had he already heard that Bigfoot is supposed to stink?

See above.

Grover Krantz mentioned encountering an overpowering odor while he was doing one of his nighttime drives on a dark forest road. At first he thought it was related to a loose sphincter (his own). The odor is often described as a combination of feces and sweat. George Schaller describes the gorilla "fear scent" as being like that and has said he can tell when he's within 100 yards of a troop by that smell.

The witnesses reported 300 lbs. and 7'. If I were into conspiracy theories, I might suggest local government put the young men up to "confessing" to avert a panic. But I'm not.

One case Byrne investigated involved a motorist who saw what turned out to be a snag. Peter had to show him his tire tracks where he'd backed up and taken off in a panic before he believed it.

Maybe the bus driver took off in hot pursuit, ran into a snag and dreamed the rest while temporarily unconscious. Who knows?
 
Support your claim. I didn't just get off the bus. Who says kushtaka means bigfoot? Where is kushtaka described as bigfoot?

I've had this discussion too many times already.

It's ridiculous.

No, Bill. You are.

(Good job, Hairy Man.)
 
Huntster is simply a liar, imo.

That's a rather nasty claim, sir.

Do you have any evidence to support it, or are you just passing wind?

Kushtaka does not mean sasquatch and he cannot show that it does.

I can "show" a number of things (which you appear incapable of doing):

Native Names for Bigfoot Across North America

Alaska and Canada

....Kushtaka (Southeastern Alaskan Tlingit Indian) - Alaska......

Now why don't you show us all where "Huntster is simply a liar.....".

If you cannot do so, of course, that would make you the liar, wouldn't it?

He must prove that kushtaka means sasquatch before he can ask his questions.

I don't have to prove squat to you before I do anything, Bozo.

Now why don't you show us (not "proof") even a shred of evidence that "Huntster is simply a liar."
 
Yes, the tribe themselves. Want to call them liars too? You are completely out of line. Kushtaka is a well-known and supported term for bigfoot. I don't know what you have read, but I would suggest that you obtain an accurate enthnography of the Tlingit (and in case you want to call me names too, I am a professional anthropologist and pretty much know, when it comes to tribal lore, what I'm talking about).

Don't bother, Hairy Man. This is classic LTC.

Worthless............
 
And with that, I find that I do have a question for you:
Great, now we're moving. BTW, you forgot to answer mine which was:In their respective habitats, how do you think a sasquatch's survival behaviour compares to a brown bear?
Since you realize that (creature or not) there is definately a phenomenon occurring, what do you think about the question I've posed repeatedly to skeptics regarding the similarities and differences with regard to the sasquatch phenomenon between Kodiak Island and Prince of Wales Island in Alaska?
An interesting question. I've sort of indicated elsewhere an interest when someone suggests a population of bigfoot in a place such as an island (Vancouver Island, POW Island) or national park (Gifford Pinchott) as opposed to say an ambiguous PNW reference because in a superficial way it kind of represents an oppurtunity to go turn the woods upsidedown and see if any sasquatches fall out. Of course that's not exactly realistic.

I think it's also important to mention that I am trying to make an effort to disregard related comments/posts outside of the dialogue and I see in this case that it's quite a challenge and I wasn't sure if I should or not.

In any event, I think my initial impressions is that when you have one huge (group of) island(s) with a ton of grizzlies, not much forestation, and no bigfoot reports and another related huge island with lots of forestation, black bears, bigfoot reports, and no griz it gets me wondering about the people factor. As in in any place you have a ton of grizzly bears around in dense populations, you're not going to have many people. It also makes me wonder about the nature/background/quality of the reports coming from POW island. I must admit though that I'm intentionally answering the question with out researching it first. I say this because in my mind anytime you have a more localized area generating lots of bigfoot reports yet no bigfoot turning up it's actually making a case against any actual creatures being there. I hope that helps. Don't forget my sasquatch/bear question.
 
Support your claim. I didn't just get off the bus. Who says kushtaka means bigfoot? Where is kushtaka described as bigfoot?

I've had this discussion too many times already.

It's ridiculous.

What do you want in particular? The stories or the references or what, cause I can post a story or just the references.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushtaka
Kushtaka are mythical creatures found in the stories of the Tlingit Indians of Southeastern Alaska. Loosely translated, Kushtaka means, "land otter man".

Since it dose say ' loosely ' translated ..

If you tighten it up, does it come out as " Bigfoot " ?



Of course Wiki is open to correction ..

If someone has different information than presented there, they can submit a proposal ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom