• 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.

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

We dont even have dna of the giant ape, due to that fact, its too premature to guess its locomotion. We know that the dental microware was consistent with that of chimpanzees, which are omnivores.

All krantz did was speculate on how it might have walked. Im sure, like me, he accepted the quadrapedal belief as a good possibility.

How do i know they regarded it as more human? Look at the pictographs and the descriptions from different tribes. Are you sure you studied every known tribe known to man?
 
ot-Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

Thats a horrible quote! More likely is that the best solution is neither an ape or man, but that its totally useless in determining anything. It shows nothing more than a biped
 
makaya325 said:
im one in crowlogics camp
Click to expand...


Crowlogic has no camp!

588267b4.jpg
 
makaya325 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have not been posting as a believer in Bigfoot extinction, quite to the contrary:

makaya325 said:
crow, thats true, but not for centuries, its been only recently that we have been looking, i wish someone would get to the bottom of this: its unfair to label all the tracks hoaxs, bc some of them arent easy to dismiss
Click to expand...

makaya325 said:
but what about the reports from remote bc or alberta? i think its good to dismiss most reports, and have skeptics realize only a fraction r true, and that they arent seen over the continent
Click to expand...
 
makaya325 said:
ot-Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

Thats a horrible quote! More likely is that the best solution is neither an ape or man, but that its totally useless in determining anything. It shows nothing more than a biped
Click to expand...

Off topic - Wrong. Try reading this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4073133&postcount=20

Patty looks like a human, we know humans make hoaxes, we know Patterson created illusions to fool people, and was not an honest individual.

It's off topic, you know the thread to talk about that sig in.

On topic - You don't need to worry about anything off topic in this thread. You've got more than enough to answer to in this thread than muse on my signature.
 
Those posts suggest I am open to the possibility of its existence today, which is quite unlikely, but not unlikely enough to rule out further consideration
 
makaya325 said:
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
Click to expand...

People are absolutely terrible at judging sizes, terrible at translating, and very, very adept at exaggeration. People giving reports of things 8' and 800 lbs (did they have a scale or something?) is meaningless. People guess my height and weight at 6'2" and 230 lbs on average, but I'm only 6' and actually 296 lbs. So about that are problematic when people speak the same language and share a common system of measurement. Add to that different languages and systems, and you have even more of a problem.

Besides that, even 8' 800 lbs descriptions of bigfoot don't fit almost any native American stories.

But I think we've all been through this before in this thread have we not? I urge you to read the thread. It's long, but worth it. There is a lot of interesting reading and of course, awesome native American legends.
 
I agree tyr. About the guess on your height, that guess was very very accurate to the nearest inch. Whoever guessed it actually believed you weighed less. People arent terrible at judging size, since you provided a good example that argues against your point.

I do know indians refer to squatch as "larger than a man"
 
Two inches and sixty-six pounds is a lot to be off for someone standing right next to you.

Indians do not refer to Squarch at all, by and large.
 
Well, Ty, its in the range of being accurate. If it was 4ft 11, then its off by alot, not if its around your height. So if someone can say such and such was way over 7ft, its reasonable to assume it was in that range
 
the 66 pounds they shedded off of you on their guess, so they tried to downsize your weight.

those pictographs suggest the hairy man is larger than man
 
So a big man? An exaggerated big man must be bigfoot? Sorry, but no. That does not follow. Also, a link to those pictographs would be nice.

My example was of people being wrong, not in people always adding weight.
 
Ty, I dont think people are as bad as society seems to believe. Judging size from 1000 ft isnt even bad, which i did judge someone from 1000ft, and i could determine if they were taller than me. How do you know that people are inaccurate, based on ambigious studies?
 
Last edited:
My name isn't Ty. People are tricked by optical illusions all the time, and if you want to see some very deep discussions of it I suggest the UFO threads.

Any you still haven't produced any evidence. You say those are bigfoot in those pictures. I say they are classic wild men or giants. There doesn't actually have to be those around for people to make them up. You don't even have the origin of the word sasquatch right.

I'm doubting you judged someone's height from 1000 feet without someone else or something else near them. That isn't the case a lot of times in the woods.
 
well, bears dont have to be around to make them up, yes they exist. Most myths have their roots in reality, so its not unreasonable to assume that indians were seeing a dieing species of hominid

JW burns coined sasquatch in the 1920's.

when i go hiking, i can tell the size of something right near me
 
But most sightings aren't right near you.

Besides that, so what that bears exist? Do oni? Do trolls? Do Dragons? Do cyclopse? Do tengu? Do any natural animals like them? No. So how does that prove one way or another?

And what do you have to say that these native stories are bigfoot? You have pictographs of big guys. Big guys =! bigfoot.
 
And how do you dismiss the sightings up close? Just dismiss them out of hand because it doesnt fit our concept of how things should be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom