Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Huntster]

......I'll hoist a Pabst in your honor, Hairyman!

Still drinking that "stuff"?

Doesn't it give you a headache?

 

[Huntster]

If you knew anything about tracks in the woods, you'd know that "they just start and then end".

Geesh.............

Sure they do.

I'm talking about tracks beginning and ending where they shouldn't. Like sasquatch tracks do.

According to your grasp of woodlore?

Huntster knows this, of course.

I know a few things, and figure out the rest.

 

[William Parcher]

Don't forget Laverty.. Though he found and cast Patty tracks ( supposedly ) within a few days of the filming, he didn't see any other evidence of the Squatch family that was supposed to be in the neighborhood ..

Lyle Laverty arrived on October 21st (the next day) and took photos, but not casts. It is inexplicable why we see so few photos and none that give an overview (wide angle) of the trackway. It's as if he decided to only take close-ups of individual tracks, instead of also showing the trackway (a line of sequential tracks).

EDIT: It is also possible that we are not shown all of his Patty track photos.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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).

Did I miss where you showed us that " Kushtaka is a well-known and supported term for bigfoot. " ?

That seems to be where you appealed to your Native American'ness , as a basis for implying the rest of us were ignorant of the matter, and couldn't rely on dubious sources like WIKI ..

 

[Huntster]

You know, I'm married. You can stop trying to turn me on with big words.

No kidding.

None of the big words I've ever used turned her on. I'm even a proponent of regular dictionary use.

RB must be one heck of a guy..........

BTW, what dictionary does he carry around..........

Maybe, what's it worth to you? Is there any beer involved? Actually, I'll leave it up to Huntster to decide. If he says I'm wrong, I apologize. If you're wrong, I apologize.

No way.

I think I've been there, and don't want to go back.

I think Hairy Man is being careful, measured, and nothing but a lady here, and have no understanding why someone might get huffy with her.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Lyle Laverty arrived on October 21st (the next day) and took photos, but not casts. It is inexplicable why we see so few photos and none that give an overview (wide angle) of the trackway. It's as if he decided to only take close-ups of individual tracks, instead of also showing the trackway (a line of sequential tracks).

EDIT: It is also possible that we are not shown all of his Patty track photos.

I thought he made a cast of the famous ' midtarsal break ' example ..

Do you recall who did ?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Diogenes
Don't forget Laverty.. Though he found and cast Patty tracks ( supposedly ) within a few days of the filming, he didn't see any other evidence of the Squatch family that was supposed to be in the neighborhood ..

Lyle Laverty arrived on October 21st (the next day) and took photos, but not casts. It is inexplicable why we see so few photos and none that give an overview (wide angle) of the trackway.

Is it "inexplicable"?

As if Laverty expected to come across this situation and carry all the film, batteries, and appropriate camera equipment to satisfy the Great William Parcher some 40 years in the future?

What an idiot..........

 

[William Parcher]

I thought he made a cast of the famous ' midtarsal break ' example .. Do you recall who did ?

Only Patterson and Titmus(?) made Patty casts. I'm not sure if any cast from her really shows the MTB. The "famous" photo of the MTB Patty track was taken by Laverty, but obviously it wasn't cast by Roger (no plaster residue shown in the photo). It may have been cast by Titmus nine days later.

 

[Correa Neto]

Damn, the beach was too full of people for my tastes! Not enough space to play with my toddler, not even a chance to make my "footprints tests"...

K., would you mind if I make a couple of suggestions? Well, I hope not, since here they are aniway...

S1: Maybe Hairy Man was referring to her cultural heritage as a citizen from USA. This includes Native North American lore as well as some genes... Not necessarily as being part of a specific ethnic group such as a tribe. I consider Native Brazilian (we use the term "indians" -from the Portuguese "Índios"- here and it can not be taken as a politically incorrect word, thus if I type "indians", please do not jump on my throat) lore part of my cultural heritage, despite the fact that my gene pool has just a small contribution from a tribe. Just as I do with Portuguese, Italian, African and French traditions/lore that were "adopted" here. And as you probably noticed, I really get p!ssed off when someone distorts my heritage, such as transforming the mapinguarí in to a giant sloth or a bigfoot...

S2: Regarding the kushtaka / kooshdakhaa issue, please take a look at this piece from Brazilian lore:

full version at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2304739&postcount=1122

Curupira or Caipora:
Small, human like, with feet pointing backwards. Quite often riding a wild pig, is a defender of the wildlife. Commonly described as a trickster, uses whistles and his footprints to confuse hunters and travellers.This myth was found nearly everywhere in Brazil.
Variants: hairy or not, long red hair, large ears, pointed (green or blue) teeth, androgionous figure. Some variants say it can change to animal form (usually game) and lure greedy hunters deep in to the forests, where they get lost. Seems to be native to Brazil, and probably suffered little "blending" with elements from European and African culture, when compared with other myths. Ignored by cryptozoologists.

Note: At Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" there is a native myth called "Curupuru", a creature much feared by the natives, later found by the main characters to be an aggressive race of hairy hominids. It seems to be a blend of the Curupira (mispelled) with the Mapinguarí. I guess he created it after hearing or reading about Brazillian myths.

The curupira and the caipora are taken by some as being the same, but by others as different entities. Maybe its the same with the kushtaka / kooshdakhaa... It depends on who tells or interprets the tales...

One last note: Have you guys noticed that Beckjords' myth twisting uses more elements of some of the original sasquatch myth variants than the "run-of-the-mill" 3m-high bipedal primate? Shapeshifter, can move freely through planes of existence, communicates with humans... Beckjord's bigfoot is more faithfull to the original lore than Krantz's and Meldrum's...


And since we're talking about myth twisting, I will use the opportunity and remember you of a true pearl:
http://www.lorencoleman.com/bigfoot_iraq.html

See why I have an issue with this line of "research"?

 

[William Parcher]

Is it "inexplicable"?

As if Laverty expected to come across this situation and carry all the film, batteries, and appropriate camera equipment to satisfy the Great William Parcher some 40 years in the future?

What an idiot..........

Hey

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

, he didn't need anything more than he had to hold the camera so that we could see the Patty trackway going away from him. We have no photo of that, and even the stills from Roger's "2nd Reel" have the lens pointed straight down at the ground. No perspective or "context" shots from anyone. Inexplicable!

 

[Mad Hom]

That's the problem with such databases.

They aren't comprehensive.

When discussing SE Alaska, I usually refer to "Raincoast Sasquatch" by J. Robert Alley.

Or in other words your handy "Bigfeetsus Bible" when ever faith waivers it's good for what ails ya huh?

 

[Hairy Man]

Did I miss where you showed us that " Kushtaka is a well-known and supported term for bigfoot. " ?

That seems to be where you appealed to your Native American'ness , as a basis for implying the rest of us were ignorant of the matter, and couldn't rely on dubious sources like WIKI ..

Nope, I appealed to my own PART native'ness later when kitkaze stated "Native Americans having bigfoot in their traditions is not a fact at all but an interpretation by those who are seeking beyond objectivity support for the notion that bigfoot is a real species." I ask him where there were examples of bigfooters forcing their views on NAs...which he still hasn't answered. However, it should be noted that if he does have an example, I will be the first to say that if that's done, it's wrong...

As far as Kushtaka being well supported, I posted this in #2095:

I looked through 10 different books and found quite a few references to Kushtaka as well as stories. Mr. Otter Man appears to be a little bit of everything. In several stories, he's in bipedal form, kidnapping kids with a basket on his back (and the descriptions are large and hairy [otter fur?]), whistles, has horrific screams, and smells bad. In other stories, he a regular human living in a house with a fire, and in others he's helping people out at sea.

Joseph Campbell in his "Ways of the Animals Powers" book series described Kushtaka as a problematic trickster, in that he has two different forms - a horrible monster-cannibal and one that is helpful and friendly (that can shape-shift from human to otter and back). Now, I don't know if the shape-shifting also applies to the cannibal, and its a three-way shift or what (and please note I don't believe for a minute that animals or people shape shift). Anyhow, it's apparent to me that the association to bigfoot is based on the stories where the Kushtaka is the monster-cannibal, but I could find no statements that Kushtaka = modern day bigfoot. Campbell did state that Kushtaka is similar to another being for a tribe listed in South America, but I didn't have a chance to follow up on what that being is.

So, no there is never a time that someone states Kushtaka = bigfoot, but the term bigfoot is a 1950s term, so to expect to find that in print isn't realist. Huntster has already stated that the Tlingits have made a modern association with the same creature from their perspective.

Does it mean that a kushtaka is a real creature and is proof of a bigfoot? No. I do not believe that traditional stories constitute proof of existence.

P.S. No, wikipedia is not a scientific source, but if you like it, go for it.

 

[Correa Neto]

Tube, that cast...

The toes look pretty weird, too small for the width of the print... And it also looks quite like some prints you made with fexible fake feet.

But today at the beach, while packing my stuff I noticed a very similar print on slightly wet sand. And it was from my wife!!!! Damn, is she a shapeshifting interdimensional being? I noticed it was at the side of a small mound of sand. It seems somehow she moved her foot sideways, creating a wider than normal rectangular print and eliminating any signs of an arch. Probably when she lifted her foot, sand collapsed over the impressions of the toes, creating the illusion of short thin toes...

Too bad I had no time to try to re-create it (banshee toddler -hmmm, starts making sense).

Well, as DY wrote, interpretation can be quite complicated...

BTW, how the dermals were impressed at the cast, since they seem to be´present only at the bottom of some irregular depressions?

 

[William Parcher]

BTW, how the dermals were impressed at the cast, since they seem to be´present only at the bottom of some irregular depressions?

The dermals in tube's photo look like human fingerprints from someone who shaped the impression. I can see a tight whorl that looks like a (near) complete fingerprint.

 

[Hairy Man]

Maybe Hairy Man was referring to her cultural heritage as a citizen from USA. This includes Native North American lore as well as some genes... Not necessarily as being part of a specific ethnic group such as a tribe. I consider Native Brazilian ... lore part of my cultural heritage, despite the fact that my gene pool has just a small contribution from a tribe. Just as I do with Portuguese, Italian, African and French traditions/lore that were "adopted" here. And as you probably noticed, I really get p!ssed off when someone distorts my heritage, such as transforming the mapinguarí in to a giant sloth or a bigfoot...

Although I was born in America, I did mean that I was a part of a specific tribe. However, you very eloquently expressed another very valid point. Since "part" appears to be the operative word, I shall never, ever forget to use again....

S2: Regarding the kushtaka / kooshdakhaa issue, please take a look at this piece from Brazilian lore:

The curupira and the caipora are taken by some as being the same, but by others as different entities. Maybe its the same with the kushtaka / kooshdakhaa... It depends on who tells or interprets the tales...

Another very good point. Thank you!

 

[tube]

The dermals in tube's photo look like human fingerprints from someone who shaped the impression. I can see a tight whorl that looks like a (near) complete fingerprint.

Yeah, I suspect you are right, but I don't mind telling you that looking at the cast made a strong emotional impact on me! Driving home from Portland that night, I had a serious case of the "willies"... What if the damn thing was real...

Sorry about the photography. As I say, I didn't know I was going to come into contact with this cast, so I brought no lamp with which to try some oblique illumination. What you see came from my flashlight. There are textures which I believe to be dermals on the toes of the cast as well. I don't know if you will be able to see them very well in this photo, but here it is:

 

[Huntster]

Damn, the beach was too full of people for my tastes! Not enough space to play with my toddler, not even a chance to make my "footprints tests"...

You'll never be able to accomplish "footprint tests" with toddlers in tow.

In fact, you'll never accomplish anything with toddlers in tow except playing with toddlers.

But that's a treat in itself............

K., would you mind if I make a couple of suggestions? Well, I hope not, since here they are aniway...

S1: Maybe Hairy Man was referring to her cultural heritage as a citizen from USA. This includes Native North American lore as well as some genes... Not necessarily as being part of a specific ethnic group such as a tribe. I consider Native Brazilian (we use the term "indians" -from the Portuguese "Índios"- here and it can not be taken as a politically incorrect word, thus if I type "indians", please do not jump on my throat) lore part of my cultural heritage, despite the fact that my gene pool has just a small contribution from a tribe. Just as I do with Portuguese, Italian, African and French traditions/lore that were "adopted" here.....

As much as I disagree with Correa in so many ways, I think he's right on here.

I'm of mixed blood. Really mixed.

I've taken on the culture of my parents for obvious reasons; I learned their languages, I learned their culture, I learned their religion, I learned their background, I was steered into a certain direction by them when "a toddler", and I am a part of them.

As part of the American mixing pot (much as Brazil is a mixing pot), I have recent aboriginal blood coursing through my veins.

Frankly, it has nothing to do with the thoughts in my mind (I think). I do believe it has something to do with my ability to heal and resist disease, but that's another topic altogether.............

It might have something to do with accepting different outlooks.

One last note: Have you guys noticed that Beckjords' myth twisting uses more elements of some of the original sasquatch myth variants than the "run-of-the-mill" 3m-high bipedal primate?

Not any more than many of the outlooks here see things from a yet different outlook.

It's just less poplular.

Shapeshifter, can move freely through planes of existence, communicates with humans... Beckjord's bigfoot is more faithfull to the original lore than Krantz's and Meldrum's...

Maybe that's because Krantz and Meldrum are (were) scientists?

You?

See why I have an issue with this line of "research"?

No.

No, I don't.

In fact, what "line of research" are you referring to?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Is it "inexplicable"?

As if Laverty expected to come across this situation and carry all the film, batteries, and appropriate camera equipment to satisfy the Great William Parcher some 40 years in the future?

What an idiot..........

Hey

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed

, he didn't need anything more than he had to hold the camera so that we could see the Patty trackway going away from him.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed

Gee. How profound.

Hold the camera in just such a way?

Why didn't that "dickhead" know any better?!

We have no photo of that, and even the stills from Roger's "2nd Reel" have the lens pointed straight down at the ground.

Imagine that!

What a bunch of "dickheads"!

They should have known that William Parcher would show up 40 years later and point that out.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's the problem with such databases.

They aren't comprehensive.

When discussing SE Alaska, I usually refer to "Raincoast Sasquatch" by J. Robert Alley.

Or in other words your handy "Bigfeetsus Bible" when ever faith waivers it's good for what ails ya huh?

It sure beats the "off the cuff", unsupported bullspit that eminates from you, "

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hunster wrote:

William Parcher wrote:
Lyle Laverty arrived on October 21st (the next day) and took photos, but not casts. It is inexplicable why we see so few photos and none that give an overview (wide angle) of the trackway.

Is it "inexplicable"?

As if Laverty expected to come across this situation and carry all the film, batteries, and appropriate camera equipment to satisfy the Great William Parcher some 40 years in the future?

What an idiot..........

Nicely put, Hunster!!

If there WAS an overview picture of the trackway....you know what William and company would have to say about it?
"It doesn't mean anything...ALL the tracks were faked after the filming."

Not having enough pictures is "inexplicable" and suspicious...

...yet HAVING THE PICTURES is "meaningless".

That's the skeptic's way of analysing evidence. It's all either "meaningless" or "highly suspicious".


Another nice example of this type of thinking comes from the "discussion" of Joyce's sighting report.

I provided details of Joyce's report...her phone conversation with me, and of my conversation with her husband.

kitakaze, or Ray, responded by asking me if I had "fully investigated" the alleged sighting, by talking to her daughter.
Because I hadn't talked to her...they saw that as "highly suspicious" and declared my "investigation" to be worthless.
But what would her testimony really mean...if I HAD talked to her?

To the skeptics....absolutely nothing.

kitakaze stated that the MOST LIKELY explanation for Joyce's sighting report is some kind of "mental disorder"...based on ONE...and only one reason ...because there is NO other "supporting, reliable evidence" for Bigfoot.

Net result....WHATEVER Joyce says, with regards to her sighting, is totally meaningless...it carries NO WEIGHT whatsoever.
That being the case....why would her daughter's statements carry any weight?
If she agreed with Joyce, the skeptics would respond by simply stating....
" It doesn't mean anything....she's also lying".
(The same as with the photos of the tracks.)

Bottom line....skeptics always ask for "good evidence"....yet when any piece of evidence is presented for analysis....it's automatically discarded as worthless because there is no "other supporting evidence".

Closed-minded circular reasoning at it's BEST!