Native American myths/traditions support Bigfoot? A critical look.

[kitakaze]

The blue bears and the giganto's must have existed in the 1000's due to the mvp.

And yet you yourself have spoken about how rare blue bears are? The animals are extremely endangered and you said that we could not even get a carcass. And yet, I showed you not only one in the wild, but two separate others in captivity.

Also, how do you explain the fact that Natives regard sasquatch as real as any other mammal and an "ordinary animal"? Why should the known species depicted by them be accepted as fact, but sasquatch isnt even considered?

This is where you must be careful in your new environment, mayaka. You can not expect to blithely pass off something as fact that has in no way been established without people such as myself immediately noticing it and calling you on it. I have yet to see any example in the entire history of this study any native group collectively regarding Bigfoot as an ordinary mammal. I have seen a number of cases where Bigfoot enthusiasts take a supernatural or boogeyman type figure and intentionally cherrypick the tradition and distort it as Bigfoot.

Again I invite you, show me this native depiction of Bigfoot - an ordinary animal that a tribe was aware of and interacted with.

 

[makaya325]

The name "Sasquatch" is an anglicization of the Coast Salish Indian word, "sesquac" of British Columbia. Sesquac means "wild man."

Not only were Native people the first here, but they've been here the longest. If Bigfoot is a real creature, there should be record on him in Native artwork and stories. And there is, all over this great country. Why? If Bigfoot is imaginary, why do all the stories describe a similar creature? Why is his behavior consistent? There are more than a thousand tribes in the United States, each with a different language or dialect. It is unreasonable to think that "Bigfoot" started as a story somewhere and spread across the entire U.S. (and Alaska and Canada). These stories are also clearly very old (especially when you consider the age of the Hairy Man pictographs). To think that this is a white invention that spread like wildfire though the Native communities at contact is also unreasonable.

 

[tyr_13]

The name "Sasquatch" is an anglicization of the Coast Salish Indian word, "sesquac" of British Columbia. Sesquac means "wild man."

Not only were Native people the first here, but they've been here the longest. If Bigfoot is a real creature, there should be record on him in Native artwork and stories. And there is, all over this great country. Why? If Bigfoot is imaginary, why do all the stories describe a similar creature? Why is his behavior consistent? There are more than a thousand tribes in the United States, each with a different language or dialect. It is unreasonable to think that "Bigfoot" started as a story somewhere and spread across the entire U.S. (and Alaska and Canada). These stories are also clearly very old (especially when you consider the age of the Hairy Man pictographs). To think that this is a white invention that spread like wildfire though the Native communities at contact is also unreasonable.

You are, simply, wrong. That is the point of this entire thread. I know it is a long one, but please read it.

 

[kitakaze]

Kitz, its just a bad analogy that insults me. I think when people bring up totally mythical animals, and try to compare it to a possible existing one, its nothing but poking fun at other peoples views

It's not a bad analogy and certainly not one that you should feel insults you. In fact you are now ironically insulting cultures such as the Greeks and Indonesians that have tales of one horned ungulates and little people that may well have some basis in reality. You see, now it is you that is being close-minded, discriminatory, and dismissive to other cultures and that which you don't understand. You think it is so wrong for someone to dismiss a giant bipedal non-human primate in North America yet you are essentially doing the same thing.

 

[makaya325]

Kitz, most of the natives regard it as a regular animal. These words are coming from natives. Im sorry, but no one is going to prove or disprove the existence of something on a public message board. And i see alot of cherry picking not only from the believers, but from skeptics too.

check this out kitz.

http://najmita.150m.com/szukalski/macimowa/yetisyn_rysunek75.gif

take a look at that. The huge nostrils and nose resemble that of a gorilla, yet gorillas dont exist in the himalayas? Perhaps more likely than the bogus boogey man explanation, it was a real animal?

 

[makaya325]

I do accept the fact that mythical animals were based on known animals, But why cant you consider the possibility that a creature like squatch, which has no other resemblances to known animals, except prehistoric hominids, in fact a giant one, was based on an ANIMAL?

 

[makaya325]

Kitz, i didnt say show me a caged one in a zoo. I said how many were ever found in the wild dead?

 

[tyr_13]

I do accept the fact that mythical animals were based on known animals, But why cant you consider the possibility that a creature like squatch, which has no other resemblances to known animals, except prehistoric hominids, in fact a giant one, was based on an ANIMAL?

Bigfoot does in fact resemble a well known and heavily studied animal; humans. Nearly every culture has stories of 'wild men'. Taking these and hammering a bigfoot mold around them does not make them bigfoot tales any more than it makes them giant tales, oni tales, or devil tales.

 

[kitakaze]

I agree Kitz, myths have their basis in reality, so why is it unreasonable to assume that Bigfoot was based on an animal that fits something shown in the fossil record?

Mayaka, you can not keep passing off Gigantopithecus as something that fits with Bigfoot. It may well be that it looks like a giant knuckle-walking gorilla or its closest living relative, the orangutan and expect to wear us down into accepting it. We are skeptics, we don't take fluff and hearsay.

If you want a fossil hominin that could be said to resemble Bigfoot than take somnething better like Paranthropus boisei or Paranthropus robustus.

With that said, Homo floresiensis and elasmotherium are in the fossil record and could easily have contributed to tales of little folk and unicorns. Be careful that your own ignorance on other cultures and animals doesn't end making you look foolish.

 

[kitakaze]

Kitz, most of the natives regard it as a regular animal. These words are coming from natives.

Repetition never replaces evidence. The evidence is what we're asking you for, not to repeat yourself for no reason.

I would like to see the words you refer to. I've seen a ton of words on supernatural beings and boogeymen. Where's Bigfoot?

And i see alot of cherry picking not only from the believers, but from skeptics too.

It is not the topic of discussion but by all means provide an example.

check this out kitz.

http://najmita.150m.com/szukalski/macimowa/yetisyn_rysunek75.gif

take a look at that. The huge nostrils and nose resemble that of a gorilla, yet gorillas dont exist in the himalayas? Perhaps more likely than the bogus boogey man explanation, it was a real animal?

I would love to check out whatever you're trying to show but unfortunately I'm getting an add for free webspace.

 

[makaya325]

Tyr, but what humans are around 8ft 800 lbs? that towers even human giants. There have been stories of people findings bodies of indians averaging 7 ft and up.

examples of cherry pickers:

daegling, radford, nickell, Greg long, Underdown.

true skeptic: See Matt Crowley, who has done incredible research on alleged tracks and gives us insight on artifacts

 

[makaya325]

Kitz, I think its incredibly biased to judge how gigantopithecus walked. Its either bipedal or quadrapedal, Which means it either resembled the hairy man, or did resemble the hairy man when standing up right

 

[kitakaze]

Kitz, i didnt say show me a caged one in a zoo. I said how many were ever found in the wild dead?

You realize you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever, right? Tibetan blue bears in the zoo tell you that people went out into the wild, found a living animal, and brought it back. Not only that, I showed you a living animal in the wild that of the person was so inclined, could easily be a dead Tibetan blue bear. Also you've seen references to people killing the bears for chinese medicine.

This is just the most terrible analogy. Why don't you forget the bear? People might think that's clever on a bigfoot forum but you're in Thunderdome now.

That bear don't fly.

 

[makaya325]

Kitz, What about Meganthropus being a source for some of the mystery apes?

I believe the most likely explanation is: Early man's fear of the gigantopithecus has led to telling stories of a once existent ape that has died out

 

[makaya325]

It demonstrates that some animals require effort and dedication to be found, unlike bigfoot has recieved.

Kitz, they have pictures of every animal in the wild dead aka carcasses. Why no blue bear pictures? Yes, thats my favorite animal

Kitz, can you please stop citing the bff's view based on your bias?

 

[kitakaze]

Kitz, I think its incredibly biased to judge how gigantopithecus walked.

But I am not judging how Gigantopithecus walked. That is what you are doing by associating it with tales of a bipedal walking beast. I do know that scientific consensus is that it moved about on all fours but that's not the issue right now.

Its either bipedal or quadrapedal, Which means it either resembled the hairy man, or did resemble the hairy man when standing up right

But if it only looked like a man's shape, as a bear does, when it raises itself on its hind legs and then went back to moving about on all fours, you wouldn't have tales of a beast walking around on two legs. You'd have tales that sound like a big gorilla or orangutan.

 

[makaya325]

Scientific Concensus bases that on what? nothing. We know too little to say whether it was bipedal or quadrapedal, and the late krantz (i know, woo!) suggested for it possibly being a biped.

Bears are seperated from bigfoot. Natives knew what bears looked like, and regarded sasquatch as something more human, but not 100% human

 

[kitakaze]

Kitz, What about Meganthropus being a source for some of the mystery apes?

If you read the literature instead of what you sponge off of other footers, then you would know that Meganthropus might simply be derived from Homo erectus. If a great big unhirsute tool using hominin can be Bigfoot for you than okey-doke:

Extreme claims
Meganthropus has been the target of numerous extreme claims, none of which are supported by peer-reviewed authors. Perhaps the most common claim is that Meganthropus was a giant, one unsourced claim put them at 9 feet (2.75 m) tall and 750 to 1000 pounds (340 to 450 kilograms). No exact height has been published in a peer reviewed journal recently, and none give an indication of Meganthropus being substantially larger than H. erectus.

There have been some rumors of post-cranial material, but those have either yet to be published or belong to H. erectus. Reports, most if not all apparently from Australian researcher Rex Gilroy, place Meganthropus in Australia, and attach it to giant tools and even modern day reports. However, most all paleoanthropologists maintain that Meganthropus was only known from central Java. In a similar way, some Bigfoot researchers claim that Meganthropus is their subject's identity.

Some creationists insist that Meganthropus are Nephilim, but there is nothing to suggest that it was anything other than a hominid, albeit a particularly robust one.

I believe the most likely explanation is: Early man's fear of the gigantopithecus has led to telling stories of a once existent ape that has died out

See, what you're not catching, and is at the heart of this thread, is that all cultures all over the world have tales of great big monster men. Every corner of the globe, you understand? Not just native Americans but Europeans and many others also. Could this be a remnant of a time when our ancestors were not the only species of hominin on Earth? Absolutely.

Gigantopithecus died out 300,000 years ago and is represented by over a thousand fossil items. That's not exactly a paucity of evidence.

 

[makaya325]

Kitz, you are absolutely right. Did i tell you that im one in crowlogics camp, in the belief that bigfoot is extinct, yet i would appreciate that someone would investigate the reports today. If the explanation for the reports are either for or against it, im satisfied, thats all. I just want it solved and done with.

 

[kitakaze]

Scientific Concensus bases that on what? nothing.

Wrong. Not nothing. Based on the observations of the one who has done the most extensive study of it, Russell Ciochon. Based on what it's closest living relative looks like. Based on the primary food source it utilized. Based on it's speculated size and habitat.

We know too little to say whether it was bipedal or quadrapedal, and the late krantz (i know, woo!) suggested for it possibly being a biped.

Grover Krantz, yes. I'm ever and ever more amused that you tried to pass yourself as something other than a Bigfoot enthusiast. Krantz was a Bigfoot enthusiast too. It is of no surprise that he interpeted the data to fit his preconceived notions in an attempt to find a fossil candidate for Bigfoot. No matter how you try to distort the facts, Gigantopithecus does not make an easy candidate for Bigfoot

Bears are seperated from bigfoot. Natives knew what bears looked like, and regarded sasquatch as something more human, but not 100% human

Evidence, not repetition.

Welcome to Thunderdome.