Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

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.

Hairy Man, would you say that traditional stories constitute evidence of sasquatch existence? It seems to be rather central in your lectures and statements on the matter.

It also begs the question of how you interpret the supernatural aspect of many of these stories.

Oh yes, and one other question. What do you think of various attributions of speech to sasquatch?

 

[kitakaze]

Wrong yet again, kitakaze. You're so clueless.

That post of mine was not an attempt at convincing Hunster that Joyce actually saw a Bigfoot.

I was making a point about the skeptic's way of "analysing" Bigfoot evidence.

Nice try. By addressing Huntster and mentioning the Joyce-capade in such way that tries to make it appear like it was fairly presented as supportive evidence of bigfoot your 'point' about skeptics merely serves as window dressing for an attempt to encourage Huntster to think the whole thing it isn't BS.

ETA: Oh yeah...

You're so stoopid

Word. I'm ill, phat, sick, and bad, too.

 

[LAL]

LAL, the latest question of the Q&A is on what you are basing your surmation that sasquatches possess an intelligence 'about like that of chimps' on.

Just an assumption based on nothing more than an assumed close relationship and behavior, such as swaying to and fro and rock-throwing, that is like that of other great apes.

People around here call themselves Cherokee with a lot less of a percentage than Hairy Man claims. Blue-eyed, blonde tribal members are common here, and there are only 500 full-blooded Cherokee left, I'm told.

You owe her an apology, IMO.

 

[LAL]

You'd better, or you'll end up like me............

In trouble.........

Oh no!

Well, Lu's still here to kick around.

 

[kitakaze]

Just an assumption based on nothing more than an assumed close relationship and behavior, such as swaying to and fro and rock-throwing, that is like that of other great apes.

I know you've discussed this on the BFF but anyway, next question:

Would orangutans be a better comparison?

People around here call themselves Cherokee with a lot less of a percentage than Hairy Man claims. Blue-eyed, blonde tribal members are common here, and there are only 500 full-blooded Cherokee left, I'm told.

Personally, if they have no native American ancestry but are recognized as tribal members I think they have every right call themselves Cherokee. If they refer to themselves as Native American, that's different. Hairy Man has clarified that she has Native American heritage and that's good but I don't think she commented on if she is a legally recognized member of the Choctaw Nation.


And now for a look at the aboriginals of Japan, the Ainu:

Very few pure Ainu left either. Most Japanese with Ainu ancestry will hide the fact due to fear of discrimination.

You owe her an apology, IMO.

That remains to be seen and if I do I most certainly will but can you tell me why you think I owe her an apology now?

 

[William Parcher]

Kitikaze wrote: LAL, the latest question of the Q&A is on what you are basing your surmation that sasquatches possess an intelligence 'about like that of chimps' on.

Just an assumption based on nothing more than an assumed close relationship and behavior, such as swaying to and fro and rock-throwing, that is like that of other great apes.

Of course Bigfoot behavior can only be evaluated by reading the eyewitness reports. Bigfoot doesn't really seem to behave like chimps. Reports seem to predominantly describe solitary individuals. Chimps are almost entirely found in social groups. Goodall and others have found that one can habituate and then spend time in very close proximity to the chimps.

The striking difference with Bigfoot comes when evaluating its behavior with other mammals we regard as highly intelligent - primarily chimps and dolphins. Those are highly social animals that allow human habituation. Wild dolphins will even approach humans with passive curiousity, and many would say with playfulness. That is all in spite of the fact that humans (in some areas) regularly hunt, kill and eat these species. If they are systematically hunted in certain areas, the result is behavior modification (of the remaining ones) such that fear and flight become more common reactions to human presence. When hunting pressure is absent or low, these species do not seem to have good "instincts" that prevent them from being killed by various means.

But Bigfoots seem to react to humans with a degree of fear or aggression that suggests a strong pressure. How or why would natural selection cause Bigfoots to be so fearful in the complete absence of human hunting pressure? We don't kill Bigfoots and it doesn't look like Native Americans did either. Why are Bigfoots so scared of people? From their perspective, we must look like strange tiny versions of them that could be totally demolished with a few punches. Their fear of us does not match our danger to them. That almost forces us to grant them a much greater intelligence than chimps. They seem to somehow "know" that we represent potentially lethal danger even though we never do that. Some Bigfooters will even say that they seem especially reactionary to guns and cameras, yet those devices do not harm them. Others will even say that they actively avoid detection by concealing their own sign (don't leave your footprints in the Skookum mud).

Yes, they appear to be granted powers of reasoning (far exceeding that of chimps and dolphins). Have they somehow figured out that we will kill them even though we do not? Why are they so scared of humans?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...And now for a look at the aboriginals of Japan, the Ainu:

[qimg]http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Ainu.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.sakhalin.ru/Region/images/ainu.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.jipango.com/jipango/no7/images/dossier/ainu.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://d21c.com/zenegata/SAT/AINUGIRL.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www2.gol.com/users/hefej/ainu.jpg[/qimg]


Very few pure Ainu left either. Most Japanese with Ainu ancestry will hide the fact due to fear of discrimination.That remains to be seen and if I do I most certainly will but can you tell me why you think I owe her an apology now?

K., some questions:

The Ainu, what are their genetic relationships with other ethinic groups? I think I remember reading somewhere they are representatives of an earlier human population that settled in Japan. Is this correct? What are their links, if any, with current Native Americans?

This is not completely OT when it comes to BF. Its part of something I suspect may be a more plausible origin for some wildmen myths in the Americas. But its sheer speculation, I must say.

 

[kitakaze]

Excellent post, William. You have articulated very well much of what I'm thinking. Now if bigfoot is a descendant of Gigantopithecus then it's closest living relative is the orangutan. Young male orangutans try to basically hump anything that moves. Given how widespread bigfoot seems to be, there seems to be a paucity of 'bigfoot tried to hump me' incidents. Here is some similar discussion at the BFF.

Let's not forget eyewitness accounts of bigfoot engaging in speech.

Bigfoot speaks Tlingit?:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13052&hl=

 

[William Parcher]

As a strong skeptic of Bigfoot existence, I evaluate the above (my posting about BF intelligence) this way...

Those who fabricate their close encounter reports have no choice other than describing the behavior the way they do. They must claim Bigfoot is actively fearful and will not tolerate habituation, because to claim otherwise would suggest that anyone can get as close to them as Goodall did with chimps. They must also claim that when Bigfoot acts aggressive (usually attributed to territory or offspring defense), it does not carry out its rage with resulting injury or death to the human invader/threat. Nobody is walking out of the woods with cracked skulls claiming that Bigfoot hit them with a 10 pound rock. These Bigfoots must always be described as terrifyingly aggressive but without any resultant injury - otherwise the claimant would have to show the injury. Why don't 9-foot tall territorial males simply rip apart humans that invade their territory?

Bigfooters often remark that "if you shoot a Bigfoot, his buddies will probably kill you before you leave the forest." Are they also thinking that Bigfoot has the same idea (i.e. "If I kill that human, a whole army of them will come and kill my family")?

What we are looking at is a myth that can only be perpetuated with fabricated stories that fall into a specific pattern. Bigfoot must be described in ways that give the impression that confirmation (any biological specimen) cannot result from any close encounter. Bigfootery is not simply fabricated claims within a patterned template. It is also a cultish assemblage of fabricated excuses why the creature cannot be confirmed.

People like Meldrum (who seems to honestly believe that Bigfoot exists) are actually victims of the myth. His whole idea of what Bigfoot is like comes from fabricated eyewitness accounts that occured even before he became interested as a child. Those accounts could never, and will never, differ from the template of a creature that successfully avoids confimation to a degree that exceeds the capacity of the humans that pursue it. In important ways, a Bigfoot encounter from 1957 is exactly the same as one from 2007.

Ironically, any claims of a Bigfoot specimen (hand, foot, body, etc) are treated with extreme skepticism (scofticism?) by Bigfooters. It's as if they themselves are not expecting a confirmation. That is because the myth of Bigfoot is so strong that they are nearly certain that it is unconfirmable. If this animal does exist, Bigfooters should be expecting a dead or killed specimen. Instead, they apply extreme skepticism.

Bigfoot skeptics understand the myth, and so the believers themselves become transparent. This is why so many skeptics look at books like Meldrum's "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" as being ornate creativity, rather than sound scientific inquiry. The Bigfooters think that he is smart man with an open mind, while skeptics simply think that the guy has been duped.

 

[kitakaze]

Correa, I think a good place to start is the wikipedia entry here. (More of my wiki abuse, I know.)

From the article:

Modern genetics has proven they are East Asians. They are usually grouped with the non-Tungusic peoples of Sakhalin, the Amur river valley, and the Kamchatka peninsula:

Nivkhs
Itelmens
Chukchis
Koryaks
Aleuts

Check the Kennewick Man reference in the American continent connection section.

Very interesting stuff.

 

[kitakaze]

As a strong skeptic of Bigfoot existence, I evaluate the above (my posting about BF intelligence) this way...

Bang on. You've been nominated.

I think LAL might soon be wanting to post a reference to Teddy Roosevelt's Bauman Story.

 

[William Parcher]

Thanks. I've said most of that stuff already in bits and pieces as responses to believers. My only request to you is to insert a hyperlink in the nomination so that there can be context.

The JREF Forum remains the premiere internet site for Bigfoot skeptics. There is no other place that I have seen quite like it for skeptical examination of the myth. Good skeptical commentary can be found on BFF, but it is always lacking a "team" effort. It's not a warm fuzzy place for strong skeptics. Additionally, I don't think any of the Bigfoot skeptic books (very few of them) have been outstanding. Any BF skeptic here can see that Daegling's book could be much better if he knew what we know (or at least propose to know). Heironimus surely could have been handled better than Long did, even if Bob really wasn't Patty. Who will write the next book on BF skepticism? Will they be someone with lots of modern internet presence?

 

[Orthoptera]

Bigfootery is not simply fabricated claims within a patterned template. It is also a cultish assemblage of fabricated excuses why the creature cannot be confirmed.

Great line, and a great summation! Last year a very bright and sensible classmate of my son completed a long project on Cryptozoology. I was one of the parent judges, and certainly didn't want to crush his sense of wonder by criticizing his work. I did mention, after the judging, as gently as I could, to consider how much of cryptozoology was simply quibbling about excuses. If he was older, I would quote him your sentences.

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks. I've said most of that stuff already in bits and pieces as responses to believers. My only request to you is to insert a hyperlink in the nomination so that there can be context.

Woops, fixed that.

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfootery is a subculture of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology defines itself and largely has no relevance to science. It is so infused with fantasy that it's almost worthless in any legitimate sense outside of entertainment. To me it looks like a weird cult of people who like to think and talk about fantastic animals. It produces almost nothing that couldn't be done if it never was "invented". They have a wacky definition of themselves that goes like, "the study of hidden animals (usually undescribed species)." But nobody can study a hidden animal in the first place. All you can study is what somebody else has said about the animal. Real study only starts when the animal is unhidden. That is why a "career" in cryptozoology (Loren Coleman) can only involve assembling stories and graphics into books and lectures. He, nor anyone else, can take you to the cryptids to watch them.

These folks regularly revel when real field biologists discover new species. Some will say that is why they themselves are cryptozoologists (possibly trying to imply that the biologist is a fellow cryptozoologist). But the cult itself was no impetus to the work of the scientist. Any field biologist who has never read or heard a single bit of Cryptozoology would still discover new species as part of their normal work. Additionally, the species they do discover weren't being proposed to exist by the cult in the first place.

They will steal from real science to feed their own fantasies. When a new macaque species is discovered, they will say it adds credibility to the existence of Bigfoot. After all, Bigfoot is just like any other hidden species... it's just that that macaque has been confirmed before Bigfoot.

There's lots more to say about the state of Cryptozoology, but it's pretty clear that it doesn't help people understand the natural world as it is.

 

[Orthoptera]

Bigfootery is a subculture of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology defines itself and largely has no relevance to science. It is so infused with fantasy that it's almost worthless in any legitimate sense outside of entertainment. To me it looks like a weird cult of people who like to think and talk about fantastic animals. It produces almost nothing that couldn't be done if it never was "invented"

Another excellent summation: you're on a real roll today.

I read every "mystery monsters" book I could get my hands on when I was a kid, so I can understand the subject's appeal to 12 year-olds.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa, I think a good place to start is the wikipedia entry here. (More of my wiki abuse, I know.)

From the article:Check the Kennewick Man reference in the American continent connection section.

Very interesting stuff.

OK, I see my memories were a bit selective...
From Wiki on the Ainu:

Some have speculated that the Ainu may be descendants of a prehistoric race that also produced indigenous Australian peoples. In Steve Olson's Book, Mapping Human History, page 133, he describes the discovery of fossils dating back 10,000 years, representing the remains of the Jomonese, a group whose facial features more closely resemble those of the indigenous peoples of New Guinea and Australia.

Is roughly what I remembered.

But consider the Kennewick man and remember Luzia, a 11.5Ky-old female from Brazil (http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text54.htm#luzia) that is not related to current South American indians, but Australoid or southeast Asian. This indicates there were pre-Clovis human populations at North America.

Now, picture yourself as a member of a Clovis tribe telling your grandsons about these other people. Maybe you waged war against them... How would you decribe them? Would you resist the temptation of adding some "extra details" to make them more fearsome and you more brave? Maybe telling they were tall and ferocious?

Then your grandsons would tell their grandsons tales about that ferocious people, and eventually add their own details... Perhaps saying they lived among the woods like wild animals... Tall wild men.

Some generations later and they become hairy, to add emphasis on their "wild side".

Eventually the "tall hairy wildman" can be used as a charachter in many legends and tales, assuming different roles and variants start to appear.

Heck, it does not take any pre-clovis population(s). All it takes are "the others", the "people who are different from us".

I have no evidence this happened. I don't claim it happened. Of course it may have happened (or not). I bring this just to show there is no need for an actual unknown bipedal ape as a template to sasquatch myths. Homo sapiens can well be the template.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Sweets is this all you have???

No.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

By addressing Huntster and mentioning the Joyce-capade in such way that tries to make it appear like it was fairly presented as supportive evidence of bigfoot your 'point' about skeptics merely serves as window dressing for an attempt to encourage Hunster to think the whole thing it isn't BS.

So, kitakaze.....you declared that my intention in writing post #2320, was something other than simply trying to make the point that I made in the post.

How exactly did you determine what my "true" intention was?
Are you psychic...or simply obnoxious?

This was "the bottom line" of what my post was all about....

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".

One thing I can say for sure is that you're WRONG...yet again!

Where in that post did I even give a REASON why Hunster, or anyone else, should be convinced that Joyce actually saw a Bigfoot?

Here is the part of the post in which I mentioned Joyce's sighting...

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".

 

[Correa Neto]

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

He already walks, so I can take pics of his footprints...

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

I am forced to disagree, again, since they can be educated.

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

Damn.. Where's that "edit" button?

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

It's just less poplular.

Less popular?
Depends on where you are looking at...

I once stumbled on a Yowie-fans forum where those who did not enjoyed paranormal yowies were seen as "close-minded"...

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

You?

Me?
"Please allow me to introduce myself
Im a man of wealth and taste
Ive been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith"

And you?

What was that Huntster?
Another appeal to authority?
By now you should have noticed they are useless here.

Now, would you happen to have something worthy or relevant to contribute to the discussion?

No.

No, I don't.

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

OK, I'll suppose you really have not understood, maybe due to some language barrier. Let me be more clear:

I have an issue with anyone whose "line of research" involves distortion of myths or cherry-picking details from myths to back a cryptozoological or UFOlogical or [add fringe subject here] claim.

Got it now?

Or you need an example?