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

[xtifr]

That's my point. There can be no sound argument about Native legends/beliefs, as I pointed out above.

Sure there can. Though I meant to say a valid argument, which is a weaker claim. (I have a bad habit of mixing the two up.) Still, it's easy to make sound arguments about native legends and beliefs. And even easier to make a valid one, which may or may not be sound.

But your argument isn't even valid, let alone sound.

"It is a common theme though for most native cultures to have some sort of man beast type thingy ingrained in their belief structure. That's Worldwide. (check it out for yourself) One would have to dismiss all to sink the putt. That's not likely to happen."

That's as may be. I neither confirm nor deny the truth of this irrelevant assertion, because it is irrelevant to the argument. It's irrelevant, because nobody ever asserted otherwise. The claim was that bigfoot is not found in Native American legends or beliefs. "Some sort of man beast type thingy" is not equivalent to bigfoot, so you haven't addressed the original claim, and moreover, you have lied when you claimed that anyone at all has disputed your new assertion. The statement you claimed was false and the statement you claim to have disproved are different. That's the essence of straw-man arguing.

And I haven't even gotten into analyzing whether you successfully managed to defeat the straw man, let alone the original argument. I tend to think no, but I haven't really looked into it, since I'm not a participant in this debate. I'm just pointing out that one of the participants (you) has gone off the rails.

You can do better. I know you can do better. I could argue your position better, and I honestly don't care whether bigfoot exists, and think that anyone who cares either way is a bit bonkers.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

What the natives have been describing is about as close to Bigfoot as one could get without using a time machine to study the Bigfoot of today. The claim that there isn't a connection of some sort is false. If you read Albert Ostman's encounter, he first talks about the Aboriginal People's belief in Bigfoot. So whether bigfoot is real or not, the connection is there.

 

[xtifr]

What the natives have been describing is about as close to Bigfoot as one could get without using a time machine to study the Bigfoot of today. The claim that there isn't a connection of some sort is false. If you read Albert Ostman's encounter, he first talks about the Aboriginal People's belief in Bigfoot. So whether bigfoot is real or not, the connection is there.

Much better. Chris should take lessons from you, OS. Of course, you still resort to argument by authority, but that's not necessarily a fallacy. It depends on who this Albert Ostman guy is. You have almost, or maybe even completely, made a valid argument. That is to say, your conclusions follow from your premises. Which leaves us only needing to address the question of whether the premises are correct.

(I don't believe they are, but at this point, that's almost a side issue.)

eta: in fact, I think there was a whole earlier thread debunking the premise in great detail. But I'm not sure I can find it at this point. In any case, I'm still pleased to see that we're back to valid arguments.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

What the natives have been describing is about as close to Bigfoot as one could get without using a time machine to study the Bigfoot of today.

The claim that there isn't a connection of some sort is false.

Provide some examples in the appropriate thread then. The only "connection" is one fabricated by modern Bigfoot enthusiasts.

If you read Albert Ostman's encounter, he first talks about the Aboriginal People's belief in Bigfoot.

If you read Leviticus, those who worship idols should be put to death.

Why do you find Albert Ostman's encounter credible? Are you still on the Bigfoot kidnapping people kookery?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Albert Ostman's credibility doesn't really have anything to do with it because whether he was being honest or just made his story based on Native legend, the connection is there. It's the same thing with Roger Patterson and some of the other researchers back then. They were all too familiar with Native American legend before Bigfoot went viral in 1967.

 

[William Parcher]

So it doesn't matter if Bigfoot exists... If everyone continues the same sorts of tales then we have got something to grab onto.

 

[leisureclass]

What the natives have been describing is about as close to Bigfoot as one could get without using a time machine to study the Bigfoot of today. The claim that there isn't a connection of some sort is false. If you read Albert Ostman's encounter, he first talks about the Aboriginal People's belief in Bigfoot. So whether bigfoot is real or not, the connection is there.

Except that, as kit pointed out, the original legends are fairy tales similar to European tales like Hansel & Gretel or Baba Yaga. Other legends, like the Wendigo, are intended to reinforce social taboos, ie "don't eat each other."

 

[Resume]

Albert Ostman's credibility doesn't really have anything to do with it because whether he was being honest or just made his story based on Native legend, the connection is there. It's the same thing with Roger Patterson and some of the other researchers back then. They were all too familiar with Native American legend before Bigfoot went viral in 1967.

Such as?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Albert Ostman's credibility doesn't really have anything to do with it because whether he was being honest or just made his story based on Native legend, the connection is there. It's the same thing with Roger Patterson and some of the other researchers back then. They were all too familiar with Native American legend before Bigfoot went viral in 1967.

OS, please look through this thread: ( referenced by EHocking earlier )

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


If you have questions or arguments for what is presented there, then please address them in the thread.

We will all be ready to continue the discussion there..

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Hmmm, so some of us deny the Native American connection because we're worried it'll support the existence of Bigfoot?

 

[eerok]

A myth based on legends. Who woulda thunk it?

The amazing thing is that anyone would try to turn this into evidence for the existence of bigfoot.

 

[Resume]

Hmmm, so some of us deny the Native American connection because we're worried it'll support the existence of Bigfoot?

Hmmm, so do some of us deny the near universal boogeyman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman) connection because we're worried it will support the existence of a boogeyman in the closet?

The only thing that will support the existence of bigfoot would be a bigfoot and there seems to be an extreme paucity of said crytpid.

 

[Resume]

A myth based on legends. Who woulda thunk it?

The amazing thing is that anyone would try to turn this into evidence for the existence of bigfoot.

I used to be amazed at what some offer as evidence for this cryptid but nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[calwaterbear]

Hmmm, so some of us deny the Native American connection because we're worried it'll support the existence of Bigfoot?

No some of us are actually currious enough to go look at the research and the actual stories, as opposed to accepting a biased uninformed opinion about the subject. Turns out when you actually do a bit of research
Native American & bigfoot - all over the map, most complete nonsequitors crammed into their anything is bigfoot mold by believers!

read it!

 

[MikeG]

I give you tokoloshe.

The southern and eastern African version of the boogeyman is used mainly to scare children into not disobeying parents, that sort of thing. It is a ghostly version of a heinously ugly human, and is said to snatch children away and eat them in the night. I found it as far north as southern Tanzania, but it may be even more widespread than that.

And as far as I know, there are no claims of BF like creatures anywhere in the region. So, it is perfectly possible to have native legends/ stories and not mistake them for support for the existence of hairy wild-men.

Mike

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What is the connection between African boogeyman stories, and Bigfoot Science's claim that Native American traditions and myths support the existence of Bigfoot ( in North America ) ?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Neither one is reliable evidence for the existence of the creature that's being described.

 

[The Shrike]

Hmmm, so some of us deny the Native American connection because we're worried it'll support the existence of Bigfoot?

No, the point is that any presumed Native American "connection" to the modern bigfoot is as tenuous as a presumed connection to European wildmen.

No one disputes that cultures all over the world have mythologies that feature some kind of wild man/beasts living in some remote backwater and scaring the crap out of people when a good morality lesson is needed by someone in the tribe. The "connection" falls apart when one actually examines those mythologies and has a really hard time linking them to anything that looks/acts like Patty.

 

[Mudcat]

Hmmm, so some of us deny the Native American connection because we're worried it'll support the existence of Bigfoot?

No. Some of us deny the connection to Bigfoot because it is tenuous at the best. And even if a firm connection could be made, it's still special pleading to say that it's evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

This same reasoning could be used to support the existence of any number of mythical creatures that seem to have a near universal presence, such as dragons. Why should Bigfoot get any special treatment?

 

[EHocking]

Guys, to argue that all Native peoples could not have any reference to hairy "men" or "people" is unwinnable for either side. Since I have no first hand study of all Native languages, I'm not qualified to know all details of every culture and belief structure on the planet and I don't think anyone else is either.

It is a common theme though for most native cultures to have some sort of man beast type thingy ingrained in their belief structure. That's Worldwide. (check it out for yourself) One would have to dismiss all to sink the putt. That's not likely to happen.

One could also argue that these beliefs could be remnant memories passed down from cultural clashes of two differing species. I'm not interested in opening it up, the only path is opinion swapping.

You are deliberately avoiding the actual point being made here and in that thread.

No one is denying the existence of such stories, myths and legends.

The purpose of the thread was to determine the plausibility that any of these stories are in any way related to a native culture trying to describe encounters with bigfoot.

You will note that the OP took pains to address the stories most touted as evidence by bleevers, and soundly debunked bf as a feasible origin.

While you are quite welcome to ignore or avoid that discussion, you are not in a position to dismiss it and the conclusions drawn in it as merely posters opinions. BF science was not employed in that thread, each and every point made was rigorously interrogated and defended.

To describe it as "opinion swapping" is merely denial. Which would be amusing if it were not hypocritical.
Bleevers are always touting the "open your mind" line.