Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Correa Neto]

Well, I was bogged down to my ears with work, and right now, here in Brazil its carnival. So, I'll just make a quick post, since going o the beach with my toddler has much higher priority than posting... Not to mention that Kitakaze already wrote lots of things that are quite close to my personal opinions.

Hairy man says the widespread nature of "wildmen" myths in North America may either be due to a real template (an unknown, large bipedal primate) or an answer to a psichological niche. In my personal opinion, its something close to the second option. To be more exact, I say it fills one or more niches. I consider this because there are myths on wild men (manimals, etc.) are not only widespread at North America, but they seem to be present all around the world. For example, a hairy wildman (Enkidu) is present at the Epic of Gilgamesh!

Check the descriptions at:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2304739&postcount=1122
These are Brazilian myths, mostly from our natives, but their current form probably have a lot of Portuguese and African myths "blending". Its easy to find several common characteristics or themes with Native North American myths and even with Enkidu (Enkidu was supposed to protect game, just like the Curupira). I consider this as examples of a similar psiche, of similar needs, similar niches, that express themselves as similar myths. I am deeply tempted to use the term "archetypes", but I'm not exactly a follower of Jung... But I digress.

At Hairy Man's list I found some short descriptions that I feel that by no means match with current bigfoot imagery. OK, maybe its because only a short description was presented, but "stone giants", "Cannibal man", "Big giant", "Giant monster" and "Cannibal monster" are not exactly similar to a 3 m tall bipedal ape. Not to mention that even when there seems to be a match, such as in "Tall hairy man", I would be very carefull on interpreting it as a 3m-tall bipedal ape unknown to science, since this seems to be an interpretation detached from the myth's original context. OK, myths quite often don't have "real" or "false" interpretations (here's where the beauty of myths lie IMHO). Aniway, my point is that myth interpretation is not exactly the most reliable piece of evidence. Of course, if there were remains of giant apes in North America dating, say from the Clovis times, I would accept the myths as very interesting "pro-bigfeet are real" evidence.

A note, once again: I tend to use "bigfoot" for the current, modern (post 1950's?) North American myth(s), and "sasquatch" for the Native North American myths, My personal opinion is that current bigfoot myths incorporated the earlier myths.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Let's see.... shoulders a third wider than any human? Pure and utter droppage from the south end of a north-bound bull. My own experiment put that claptrap to rest.

IM index? Please explain how anyone was able to accurately measure an IM index without actual bones.

Sloped forehead? Gah, that seems to be the latest bandwagon to jump on. Where is your evidence of a sloped forehead? Sweaty still hasn't shown us any pinhead experiments or results.
...snip...

Hey Ray, Look at that gorilla pic in the right! Can't you see a human head would not fit inside? The forehead, man, look at the slope! And the mouth! Its just too big! You would see the guy inside the mask!

Oh, don't forget to pretend you are not seeing the pics on the left and bottom that show how human proportions were changed in movies from the 50's...

But wait!!!
Look at this!!!!

The IM and the sloping forehead of Kong!!! Those rule out the possibility of a man in suit!!! Look also at Godzilla's head!!!! Too small to fit a man's head! It must be the real deal!!!! Eiji Tsuburaya in 1963 surely filmed the real animals!!!!Gojira is real!!! King Kong is real!!!

Bottom line: even if Patty fingers actually moved in the PGF, even if her IM is not human, by no means these are reliable pieces of evidence that Patty was not a fellow from P&G wearing a gorilla suit...

OK, that's it. I'm going to the beach.

 

[kitakaze]

Yes, here in Japan not a day goes by that we aren't beset by all manner of nifty costumes. Have fun at the beach. I think I'll take my boy to the Ultra Man museum.

 

[TjW]

Regarding the "two-frame animation":
To me it looks like the hand is at a more-or-less constant angle to the arm, and the arm is rotated so the hand is away from the camera.

 

[kitakaze]

And now to take out a shovel with which to either dig a very large hole or eat some very large crow.

Since I seem to have found myself out of Hairy Man's good books I think I might as well just come out with it and say what I'm really thinking. I think Hairy Man is feigning to be so offended by my questioning of her claim to be Native American and that it's simply just deflectionary in light of attention being drawn to what seem to be erroneous statements made by her. I think I can understand her effort to shift the attention as those erroneous statements are particularily questionable given her profession, area of expertise, and efforts as a major bigfoot enthusiast.

I want to stress the fact that I'm not trying to be harshly critical and in every reference of her that I've seen she's been shown to be a kind and gracious individual.

First, I think she was mistaken when insinuating that I was in error in my posting of the kû'cta-qa section of the wikipedia article on the Tlingit under an apparently phonetic spelled heading (kooshdakhaa) as being unrelated to kushtaka. I think she later realized this and instead of being forthright in admitting the error I think she felt it would be embarrassing given it involves her area of interest as an anthropologist and instead attempted to cover for the error by trying to invent an explanation as to how kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are not both alternate renderings of kû'cta-qa.

I'll be blunt, she seems a very nice person but I think she was absent-minded (who of us isn't sometimes?), made a mistake in an area that she should definitely have known better, and then tried to cover for it.

Next, the native reference. I think when she referred to herself as a Native American she was at the time under the assumption that I was not aware that she is Kathy Moskowitz-Strain, head of the AIBR and that her identity was not fully known on this skeptic board. Indeed, some posters had no idea who she was and when I began a discussion with her it had escaped my attention until another member pointed it out.

If one makes the effort to do a cursory search on Mrs. Moskowitz-Strain one will find many references of her bigfoot enthusiast efforts and her theories of Native American traditions as evidence of bigfoot. In none of these references which abound with her central interest and work with native groups is there any mention that she herself is a Native American. Why is that? Well, I think more than a few eyebrows would be raised if Kathy (here's a photo) made a habit of claiming to be a Native American in her many interviews. I think if I were a Native American myself and Kathy asserted to me to be one also a smile and a nod would probably be the best response.

One thing I do find odd is that when Hairy Man took the time to post a response and declare her indignation at my confusion about her claim to be a Native American she was promptly responded to with two queries on which tribe she was a member of yet made no effort to provide a seemingly simple answer. This is of course not to mention that in making such a clear show of indignation she didn't seem particularily interested in addressing the inconsistencies of the kooshdakhaa/kushtaka matter.

I'm quite sure now that Hairy Man is going to be thoroughly incensed with me and as I've already indicated I'm quite willing to eat crow if such is to be had. It's rather unfortunate as she really does seem to be a very pleasant person. Unfortunately being nice doesn't make you correct. If she can show me that I'm mistaken then I will make much effort to apologize to her and bear the ensuing loss of credibility.

 

[Hairy Man]

And now to take out a shovel with which to either dig a very large hole or eat some very large crow.

Since I seem to have found myself out of Hairy Man's good books I think I might as well just come out with it and say what I'm really thinking. I think Hairy Man is feigning to be so offended by my questioning of her claim to be Native American and that it's simply just deflectionary in light of attention being drawn to what seem to be erroneous statements made by her.

No, I think what I'm offended by is that as someone who appears to be quite intelligent, you can't seem to figure out how someone can be both native and light skinned. You seem to make a lot of assumptions, which disappoints me in the year 2007.

I think I can understand her effort to shift the attention as those erroneous statements are particularily questionable given her profession, area of expertise, and efforts as a major bigfoot enthusiast.

I want to stress the fact that I'm not trying to be harshly critical and in every reference of her that I've seen she's been shown to be a kind and gracious individual.

First, I think she was mistaken when insinuating that I was in error in my posting of the kû'cta-qa section of the wikipedia article on the Tlingit under an apparently phonetic spelled heading (kooshdakhaa) as being unrelated to kushtaka. I think she later realized this and instead of being forthright in admitting the error I think she felt it would be embarrassing given it involves her area of interest as an anthropologist and instead attempted to cover for the error by trying to invent an explanation as to how kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are not both alternate renderings of kû'cta-qa.

I'll be blunt, she seems a very nice person but I think she was absent-minded (who of us isn't sometimes?), made a mistake in an area that she should definitely have known better, and then tried to cover for it.

Nope, you are still wrong, but you do seem like a nice person. An easy answer would be to look in a Tlingit language dictionary, which are available, for both words and their definitions.

Next, the native reference. I think when she referred to herself as a Native American she was at the time under the assumption that I was not aware that she is Kathy Moskowitz-Strain, head of the AIBR and that her identity was not fully known on this skeptic board. Indeed, some posters had no idea who she was and when I began a discussion with her it had escaped my attention until another member pointed it out.

If one makes the effort to do a cursory search on Mrs. Moskowitz-Strain one will find many references of her bigfoot enthusiast efforts and her theories of Native American traditions as evidence of bigfoot. In none of these references which abound with her central interest and work with native groups is there any mention that she herself is a Native American. Why is that? Well, I think more than a few eyebrows would be raised if Kathy (here's a photo) made a habit of claiming to be a Native American in her many interviews. I think if I were a Native American myself and Kathy asserted to me to be one also a smile and a nod would probably be the best response.

One thing I do find odd is that when Hairy Man took the time to post a response and declare her indignation at my confusion about her claim to be a Native American she was promptly responded to with two queries on which tribe she was a member of yet made no effort to provide a seemingly simple answer. This is of course not to mention that in making such a clear show of indignation she didn't seem particularily interested in addressing the inconsistencies of the kooshdakhaa/kushtaka matter.

I have talked about my native heritage quite a few times, both in lectures, a documentary, and in interviews. I am very sure that I have discussed on the BFF and AIBR as well. If it would make you happy, I guess I can start bringing it up more, but I’m sure it will get old very quick. For the record, I am 1/4 Choctaw, 1/4 English, 1/4 German, and 1/4 Scottish/Irish. And, unfortunately for me, I'm not a true blond. But thank you for posting one of my better photos, as there are some truly horrible ones out there. And no, I don't raise eyebrows...

(and where do I say NA stories constitute proof that bigfoot exists?)

I'm quite sure now that Hairy Man is going to be thoroughly incensed with me and as I've already indicated I'm quite willing to eat crow if such is to be had. It's rather unfortunate as she really does seem to be a very pleasant person. Unfortunately being nice doesn't make you correct. If she can show me that I'm mistaken then I will make much effort to apologize to her and bear the ensuing loss of credibility.

I'm not incensed. Like I stated, I'm more disappointed that in this day in age, assumptions are made based on a photograph. Since Moskowitz is my first husband's name, I hope no one will make assumptions about my religion...or for that matter, with two marriages, my morals!!!

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks for the candid reply. Before properly addressing the rest I must make mention of this...

When calling yourself a native did you mean as a caucasian who has a Native American relative?

For the record, I am 1/4 Choctaw, 1/4 English, 1/4 German, and 1/4 Scottish/Irish.

Do you understand why I'm making an issue of your calling yourself a Native American?

 

[Hairy Man]

Thanks for the candid reply. Before properly addressing the rest I must make mention of this...

Do you understand why I'm making an issue of your calling yourself a Native American?

No, sir...I honestly don't. You would apparently also have problems for with Barak Obama calling himself white and black even though he looks black; or Tiger Woods calling himself Thai and black, although he appears black. But if it's truly an issue for you, please visit the Choctaw Nation website and take a look at the chief on the homepage and ask them what constitutes a Choctaw.

Please note, that you are more than welcome to feel however you would like to feel. However, since my national heritage isn't related to bigfoot, I would suggest any more discussion of this be taken up in a PM.

 

[kitakaze]

Hairy Man, you would like me to take into account your claim of being a Native American when discussing bigfoot. You said...

As a native myself, I would like you to show me an example where a bigfooter has said a traditional animal was a bigfoot and a member of that tribe denied it.

...but you are not a Native American. You are a caucasian women with an unspecified Native American relative. Again, to which tribe are you a member?

 

[Mad Hom]

Bottom line, NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN FROM THE PGF.

RayG

Amen brother Ray.

I firmly believe inconclusive is preferrable to definite for Bigfoot Fan. When they see things that us silly skeptics don't than they feel somehow superior to us for seeing it....this way they can data mine and appeal to authority to their hearts content. It's like they are in some exclusive club or something.

EVERYTHING else is being or has been shot to smithereens with regards to Bigfeetsus evidence. They fall back on the CMF...errr...PGF for the same reason they continue to fall back on anecdotal accounts,native legends and feetprints...because they are inconclusive. I think Bigfoot Nation would rather it stay a mystery...this way they can always think theyre smarter than those who don't see what they do....just a thought.

 

[kitakaze]

Does your edit mean you don't find the Barak Obama or Tiger Woods reference to be helpful?

 

[kitakaze]

Hairy Man, why do both kooshdakhaa and kushtaka refer to kû'cta-qa?

 

[kitakaze]

You would apparently also have problems for with Barak Obama calling himself white and black even though he looks black; or Tiger Woods calling himself Thai and black, although he appears black.

I think you're obfuscating your claim of being a Native American. Are you a member of the Choctaw Nation? If Woods or Obama wanted to be accurate they would refer to themselves as of mixed heritage. Not soley Black, White, or Thai. Why do you try to make me believe you are a Native American when that is not true? Did you grow up in a Native American environment or do you just selectively claim the identity of one of your relatives whilst disregarding the others?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

However, since my national heritage isn't related to bigfoot ....

Then why did you bring it up ?

 

[Mad Hom]

Then why did you bring it up ?

For the record...I'm Irish/German....I might have some other stuff sprinkled in there somewhere but I don't do thirds,fourths or even sixteenths.

Why did I bring this up?? Well I just figured if it's good enough for Tiger and Obama..than well...heck...

 

[Mad Hom]

A little off topic but...I am currently lurking on another Skeptics Board that has had the unfortunate luck of having been invaded by His Who's Name Shall Not Be Repeated(rhymes with Jeckjord) and my gosh is that guy not an absolute Looney Tune. Nuttier than a bag of trail mix I say.

He's trying in vain to say that Bigfeetsus will never be captured or proven because they have mastered the art of wormhole use. Wow how Conveeeeeenient!!

What goes wrong in the human mind that allows someone to Bleev something that he feel's impossible to prove??

He also has claimed to have seen a Bigfeetsus 5 times and to have spoken with one of them (that's right I said spoken with one)

My gosh that guy is funnier than anyone purposely trying to be funny ever was. Just the entertainment value of his posts alone makes his existence worthwhile.

 

[William Parcher]

Mad Hom, which do you think will occur first?

1) Proof that a flesh-n-blood Bigfoot does not exist.
2) Proof that a wormhole Bigfoot does not exist.

It's a never ending stage play when you believe in Bigfoot (from any origin).

 

[tube]

Lest we suffer a paucity of Bigfoot-related material to muse over, I offer the following:

Here is a purported Bigfoot cast made by Frank Kineaster on January 27, 1999 in Bee Creek Oregon. The cast is owned by Thom Powell. I was not expecting to do any close-up photography that day, so I was caught off guard in not having optimum lighting or even included rulers. The chisel-pointed melamine chopstick you see is 10&3/4" long.

Here is the plantar surface:

You may find the following statement strange coming from me, but I am solidly convinced that this cast contains dermal ridges:

Again, I kick myself for failing to bring a ruler along, so you can't judge the absolute size of these features, so you will have to take my word for it that they are of the same dimension as known dermal ridges. They exhibit the same sort of short order recursion as real dermal ridges. They look to me to exhibit characteristics of known dermal ridges, including loops, arches, whorls, and possibly a core.

By logic alone, we have a small number of possibilities. Either the cast represents a genuine Bigfoot track, or a human hoax. If it is a genuine Bigfoot track, then it is reasonable to conclude that these are genuine dermal ridges. If it is a human hoax, then the ridges are clearly not Bigfoot's dermal ridges. If they are not Bigfoot's dermal ridges, then what are they?

Well, most likely they are HUMAN dermal ridges. If so, it follows the pattern that Paul Freeman gave us. This is a copy of the "Dermals" cast made by Grover Krantz himself, and owned by Mike Dennett:

Indeed, Chilcutt himself identified these as HUMAN dermal ridges. Remember, before Chilcutt identified these as HUMAN dermal ridges, Krantz held them to be genuine Bigfoot dermal ridges.

 

[kitakaze]

Nope, you are still wrong, but you do seem like a nice person. An easy answer would be to look in a Tlingit language dictionary, which are available, for both words and their definitions.

I must admit that I find it strange that you simply didn't post those entries and definitions. That would have been an easy answer IMO, especially since this is supposed to be an area of which you are an authority.

In any event, since I do not have a Tlingit language dictionary handy to consult on the matter I was able to find an online English - Tlingit dictionary that listed 'kooshdaa' as 'land otter' after entering the word otter. In the wikipedia entry on Tlingit nouns I was able to find 'khaa' as 'person'. Perhaps now would be a good time for a word on rendering the Tlingit language in the latin alphabet...

Tlingit was until the late 1960s written exclusively in phonetic transcription in the works of linguists and anthropologists, except for a little known Cyrillic alphabet used for publications by the Russian Orthodox Church. A number of amateur anthropologists doing extensive work on the Tlingit had no training in linguistics whatsoever and left numerous samples in vague and inconsistent transcriptions, the most famous being George T. Emmons. However, such noted anthropologists as Franz Boas, John R. Swanton, and Frederica de Laguna have transcribed Tlingit in various related systems which feature accuracy and consistency, though sacrificing readability.

Two problems ensue from the multiplicity of transcription systems used for Tlingit. One is that there are many of them, thus requiring any reader to learn each individual system depending on what sources are used. The second problem is that most transcriptions made before Franz Boas's study of Tlingit have numerous mistakes in them, particularly because of misinterpretations of the short vowels and ejective consonants. Thus it is important to check any given transcription against similar words in other systems, or ideally against a modern work postdating Naish and Story's work in the 1960s.

...and another posting of the kû'cta-qa section of the wikipedia entry on the Tlingit.

The Kooshdakhaa
No description of the Tlingit would be complete without mentioning the Kooshdakhaa (kû'cta-qa), the dreaded and feared Land Otter People.

These creatures are human from the waist up, and otter-like below. Land otters are excellent fishers. Those who are drowned often marry (and become) land otters, and land otters can assist in drownings. Land otters are sinister and potentially harmful. When properly controlled, however, the land otter can be of great help to humans, such as fishermen whe penetrate the sacred realm beyond social boundaries. Those drowned and married to land otters (and their land otter children) can return to their human relations and assist them, usually by helping them catch abundant supplies of seafood. The land otters can make human children grow tails; they can only eat raw food, for if they eat cooked fish they will die; and as supernatural beings, after being out on the water they must regain land and find shelter before the raven calls or they will die.

[All Tlingit fear drowning. Land otter boogeyman. Helpful kooshda.]

I do wonder if you are still trying to tell me that kooshdakhaa and kushtaka or not both kû'cta-qa.

For the record, I am 1/4 Choctaw, 1/4 English, 1/4 German, and 1/4 Scottish/Irish.

For the record I am wondering if you are telling us that you had one grandparent born a member of the Choctaw Nation, one in England, one in Germany, and one in Scotland/Ireland boggled: however that's possible). I'm also wondering why you are being disgenuous about referring to yourself as a Native American with a high school-like lineage account and don't just simply say 'I'm an American'.

Since both my parents who are Canadian come from a British lineage maybe I should start referring to myself as British (though I'm sure carcharodon/Lyndon would not be impressed). On the other hand, my son who is a citizen of both Japan and Canada could (when he gets old enough) refer to himself as both though being raised in Japan might affect that. Sometimes other Japanese will refer to him as 'haafu/half' or 'gaijin/outsider' which I'm quick to object to.

 

[RayG]

On the other hand, my son who is a citizen of both Japan and Canada could (when he gets old enough) refer to himself as both though being raised in Japan might affect that.

Gah, I'm Canadian, my wife's American, my son was born in Bermuda. While he is considered both a Canadian and a US citizen, and has a Bermudian birth certificate, he has no claim to anything connected to Bermuda.

He just recently had his Ontario health card cancelled because it was so badly damaged, and they won't give him a new one until he proves his citizenship. Even though he already has two documents showing he's the child of a Canadian, has had a social insurance number for a few years now, and has lived in Canada for a quarter of a century, he needs my birth certificate (proving I'm Canadian) to satisfy the Ministry of Health here in Ontario.

RayG