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

[Resume]

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.

Yeah, that open your mind stuff means believe the crap they make up. These folks, if they are to be believed, could not only open minds, but in fact blow them.

Every single "habituator" has the ability to produce unambiguous objective evidence; all these folks (NAWAC, et al) that claim to see/ interact with bigfoot on a regular basis could do the same. Notice all they ever produce are excuses, though an abundance of those.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

It's left open to opinion. Opinions based on opinions of others. Nothing, that is nothing is provable beyond opinion in that opening post.

I freely admit to having no background in Native American culture and language studies and one would have to eliminate every single possibility of Bigfoot or hairy men within each culture and language back to the contemporary. You can't. It's impossible to do because you can only base your belief on an opinion that "What they really meant was this:" etc. About every single culture and language. Knowledge of the unknowable isn't allowed into proof of fact, again it's only opinion.

 

[William Parcher]

The word is woo.

 

[Vortigern99]

First a bit of context.

Here is a link to many colorful Native American folktales with such supernatural characters as the Vampire Hermit, the Wampus Cat and Wishpoosh the monster beaver.

Here is a host of Native ghost tales, including that of Coyote and the origin of death.

This wiki page covers the Thunderbird of Passamaquoddy belief.

And this one is about the spiked river panther or "underwater wild-cat" of the northeastern tribes.

Here is the hairy man / hairy family pictograph at Painted Rock, California. This particular page presents a fairly persuasive argument that the figures are meant to be bigfoot(s).

Let's say they are. Let's allow that all of these various "wild-men" stories are meant to be the same iconic primate we call bigfoot. And...? What, exactly? As anyone can read for themselves from the above and countless other links on-line, American tribal folklore is rife with elemental spirit beings, talking animals, half-people/half-beasts, ghosts in many permutations, and fantastical animals with mystical powers. It doesn't follow that any of those creatures is real.

Chris will ignore this or sidestep it.

 

[EHocking]

It's left open to opinion. Opinions based on opinions of others. Nothing, that is nothing is provable beyond opinion in that opening post.

Ah. So you're going to go with denial rather than discussion.

I freely admit to having no background in Native American culture and language studies

... and argument from ignorance.

The fact is that the opinions on that thread are at least informed.
Unlike your uninformed dismissal.

... and one would have to eliminate every single possibility of Bigfoot or hairy men within each culture and language back to the contemporary.

Nope. Strawman. Blithely ignoring the points I actually make in my posts does not validate your argument.

The focus in that thread were stories that bf proponents specifically call up as evidence that native americans enganged with bf.

You can't. It's impossible to do because you can only base your belief on an opinion that "What they really meant was this:" etc. About every single culture and language. Knowledge of the unknowable isn't allowed into proof of fact, again it's only opinion.

The burden of proof is on the the proponents (i.e., you), to present evidence that any native American myths or legends support the premise that they encountered bf.

Remember, only one such story with falsify the null hypothesis assumed in the OP of that thread.

You keep stating that it is common knowledge that native people have stories that relate to bf-type encounters.

Burden of proof of that statement is on you, not me.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Ah. So you're going to go with denial rather than discussion.... and argument from ignorance.

The fact is that the opinions on that thread are at least informed.
Unlike your uninformed dismissal.Nope. Strawman. Blithely ignoring the points I actually make in my posts does not validate your argument.

The focus in that thread were stories that bf proponents specifically call up as evidence that native americans enganged with bf.The burden of proof is on the the proponents (i.e., you), to present evidence that any native American myths or legends support the premise that they encountered bf.

Remember, only one such story with falsify the null hypothesis assumed in the OP of that thread.

You keep stating that it is common knowledge that native people have stories that relate to bf-type encounters.

Burden of proof of that statement is on you, not me.

The mistake you're making is that you think I'm onboard with every Bigfoot proponent and their views. I'm not.

If you ask me to accept that no Native peoples ever had any word or description or legend of a "hairy man" or man beast type hairy thingy, I cannot.

Simple huh.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm not sure who is the bigger fool. You for being a Bigfoot knower or a skeptic that attempts to explain to you that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

I might have to toss a coin.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

First a bit of context.

Here is a link to many colorful Native American folktales with such supernatural characters as the Vampire Hermit, the Wampus Cat and Wishpoosh the monster beaver.

Here is a host of Native ghost tales, including that of Coyote and the origin of death.

This wiki page covers the Thunderbird of Passamaquoddy belief.

And this one is about the spiked river panther or "underwater wild-cat" of the northeastern tribes.

Here is the hairy man / hairy family pictograph at Painted Rock, California. This particular page presents a fairly persuasive argument that the figures are meant to be bigfoot(s).

Let's say they are. Let's allow that all of these various "wild-men" stories are meant to be the same iconic primate we call bigfoot. And...? What, exactly? As anyone can read for themselves from the above and countless other links on-line, American tribal folklore is rife with elemental spirit beings, talking animals, half-people/half-beasts, ghosts in many permutations, and fantastical animals with mystical powers. It doesn't follow that any of those creatures is real.

Chris will ignore this or sidestep it.

I'm not sure what you're asking of me? Do you want me to argue for the existence of Native American legends of hairy men? Or against it?
I decline either way.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm not sure who is the bigger fool. You for being a Bigfoot knower or a skeptic that attempts to explain to you that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

I might have to toss a coin.

Tails.

 

[EHocking]

The mistake you're making is that you think I'm onboard with every Bigfoot proponent and their views. I'm not.

If you ask me to accept that no Native peoples ever had any word or description or legend of a "hairy man" or man beast type hairy thingy, I cannot.

Simple huh.

Yes, it is quite simple to see you constructing strawmen and then demolishing them.

None of your post bore any relationship to anything in the post of mine that you responded to.

Your continued avoidance of discussing the points that I have raised is quite telling.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yes, it is quite simple to see you constructing strawmen and then demolishing them.

None of your post bore any relationship to anything in the post of mine that you responded to.

Your continued avoidance of discussing the points that I have raised is quite telling.

You know, I've noticed you guys like to use words like: Strawman, fallicy, etc. Do you normally use those words often in every day life? I don't.

Fact is, I'm not interested in debate of an unknowable topic. It's unimportant to me either way.

If you believe that all Native Americans never had any sort of legend of hairy folks, that's great.

I think some may have, I also think other native peoples from around the World shared similar beliefs as evidenced in Tibet.

But that's as far as we can ever get. You have your opinion based on your research and findings and I have mine. I'm not knocking your ability, it's just there's no path to take from here that leads to fact for either side.

 

[EHocking]

You know, I've noticed you guys like to use words like: Strawman, fallicy, etc. Do you normally use those words often in every day life? I don't.

You may not use the words, but you certainly use the argument.

Here it is again...

If you believe that all Native Americans never had any sort of legend of hairy folks, that's great.

I have repeatedly stated that was never the position of any of the posters here, or on the other thread.

But there you go, arguing against it anyway....

I think some may have, I also think other native peoples from around the World shared similar beliefs as evidenced in Tibet.

Uninformed opinion. You have even stated that you are ignorant of the subject.

Yet it doesn't stop you claiming your opinion is more trusted that others that are better informed of the subject than you.

But that's as far as we can ever get. You have your opinion based on your research and findings and I have mine.

Uh, no.
You haven't done any research.

I'm not knocking your ability, it's just there's no path to take from here that leads to fact for either side.

Incorrect. All you need do is read that thread and you will find a gread deal of facts and other evidence laid out.

Your continued denial says more about the integrity of your approach to the subject than it does about mine.

 

[xtifr]

You know, I've noticed you guys like to use words like: Strawman, fallicy, etc. Do you normally use those words often in every day life? I don't.

No, but in everyday life, I also don't run into a lot of people who fervently believe in aliens or ghosts or bigfootsies. (Or at least, have the sense not to sit around trying to convince others to believe in aliens or ghosts or bigfootsies.) Also, a large majority of people I know don't routinely resort to logical fallacies in order to try to prove the preposterous, so it doesn't come up that often. Around here, though....

If you believe that all Native Americans never had any sort of legend of hairy folks, that's great.

And we're back to straw men. "Hairy folks" are not the same as bigfoot. The ancient Greeks had legends of hairy folk who danced around the forest on tiny goat feet. And you know why that doesn't suggest bigfoot to any sane person? I'll give you a hint. It has something to do with feet. Try showing us some evidence of Native American legends of creatures with BIG FEET, and maybe you'll be starting to form a coherent and relevant argument.

 

[Mudcat]

One would have to eliminate every single possibility of Bigfoot or hairy men within each culture and language back to the contemporary.

What would the point of such an endeavor be?

It's impossible to do because you can only base your belief on an opinion that "What they really meant was this:" etc. About every single culture and language.

So would that not also preclude Native American legends from being used to support Bigfoot? You didn't think that through, did you?

 

[EHocking]

That's one of the ways Cross River Gorillas and Bigfoot are alike. Locals considered them both "hairy people". Thanks Vort.

And yet this doesn't stop them killing Cross River Gorillas.
http://crossrivergorilla.org/index.php/en/conservation/gorilla-killings

That said, this is a tantalising point that is repeated through the literature,

​

For example, throughout much of the Cross River gorilla range in Cameroon, there is a traditional prohibition on the sale of gorilla meat, and hence hunters have not sought out this species. Similarly, people in the Kagwene Mountains and Bechati-Fossimondi forest region of Cameroon, and some people on the Obudu Plateau in Nigeria, have a traditional ban on eating gorillas.
​

but without an explanation as to the reason behind the tradition.

Ah, here we have it.

Traditional Knowledge Systems and the Conservation of Cross River Gorillas: a Case Study of Bechati, Fossimondi, Besali, Cameroon.

As far as I can tell, this sentence, "gorillas are used by local people as totem animals", is about as close as you get to an explanation of their belief regarding gorillas. Note that this is NOT the people thinking they are "hairy men" ; "Although gorillas were the main focus of these totemic kinship beliefs, some respondents also mentioned the use of chimpanzees, monkeys, leopards, brush-tailed porcupines, and owls as animal totems."

A totem animal then. Basically a kinship is recognised, but they are never thought of as anything but animals.

Seems the line about "hairy men" and gorillas, in this case, is total invention.

ETA: This relationship is being researched because of the potential to use native tradition, belief and taboo to help with gorilla conservation.

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me? Do you want me to argue for the existence of Native American legends of hairy men? Or against it?
I decline either way.

This is a discussion forum, so I'm inviting you to continue the discussion you started in citing tribal legends.

You've been trying to use Native stories of hairy or wild or half-human people as support for your belief in bigfoot. Some of us here are trying to show you there are many supernatural beings and non-existent animals in Native folklore. The "wild-man" is one of these.

It doesn't mean it's a real being. Do you see my point or don't you?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

So, are we to accept that an ancient race of Cat People once existed throughout Africa during Egypt's heyday, Chris?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You may not use the words, but you certainly use the argument.

Here it is again...I have repeatedly stated that was never the position of any of the posters here, or on the other thread.

But there you go, arguing against it anyway....
Uninformed opinion. You have even stated that you are ignorant of the subject.

Yet it doesn't stop you claiming your opinion is more trusted that others that are better informed of the subject than you.
Uh, no.
You haven't done any research.Incorrect. All you need do is read that thread and you will find a gread deal of facts and other evidence laid out.

Your continued denial says more about the integrity of your approach to the subject than it does about mine.

I'm not really sure why you need me to participate in a subject I have no interest in?

You make somewhat desperate responses to my post above but you seem to have left out the most important point of my post:

"Fact is, I'm not interested in debate of an unknowable topic. It's unimportant to me either way."

As I said before I freely admit I have no credentials in Native American culture or languages, if you do I'm happy for you.

My point about the locals in Tibet acknowledging the Yeti documented back to 326 BC is commonly available on the NatGeo site, and doesn't require credentials to read. So in the long run I would guess that's one fly in the ointment for you to overcome.

If your point is meant only to apply to Native American cultures, then great, that would take care of the Tibetan Yeti fly. If you wish to convince me that all Native American cultures and languages never had any legends or words for what we consider Bigfoot, you can't.

The best you could do is base a theory on your opinion and the opinions of others. I'm sorry but opinion doesn't prove anything either way.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

My view is that the Native's Wildman tales, like those of the Aboriginal Aussies etc, were molded into modern BF by Westerners.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Really, what (insert any cryptid or spook here) comes down to, is myth-making and folklore. Two very real and beautiful things.