• 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.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Locals term Sasquatch, look it up, and Cross River Gorillas fig eating video from NatGeo.

Nothing at all about Native Americans. :D

sasquatch (ˈsæsˌkwætʃ)

— n
(in Canadian folklore) in British Columbia, a hairy beast or manlike monster said to leave huge footprints
[1925–30; < Mainland Halkomelem (Salishan language of SW British Columbia) sέsq̉əc]
[from Salish]

<snip>
Click to expand...

"Sasquatch" is a word invented by J.W. Burns (a non-native school teacher) for a series of fanciful articles he wrote for newspapers and McLeans magazine in the 1920's.

The creatures he writes about are certainly not part of the ancient Sto:lo culture as there are no legends that correspond to what or how "sasquatches" or "bigfoot" are now described. Period.

I have researched my culture's (mother's side) stories and although there are many animals that are given human abilities (such as being able to speak to humans) - there is nothing to indicate a pervasive or Sto:lo wide legend involving anything "squatchy". However, a willingness to tell stories to gullible outsiders and then to laugh about how easy it was to fool them was and is pretty widespread!
(Note: Discovered same willingness to tell stories to gullible foreigners in Ireland, Norway, and many other European countries. It seems to be something we humans are good at!)
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If you mean "we" as in you and that mouse in your pocket, I agree.
Click to expand...

I think even the mouse in my pocket agrees with the consensus (both public and scientific)regarding evidence for the cryptid known as bigfoot.

Which is of course there is no biological or any other objective evidence for the existence of bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Holy Jeebus on a Toast...

"You can't prove there's no real bigfoot at the root of every single Native American wild-something-big or not, hairy or not, human-like or not" is as stupid as "you can't prove bigfoot is hiding behind a tree"! And it will not work as a pro-bigfoot argument.

Let's suppose some hairy wild people myth from West Africa was born from gorillas. Let's suppose some similar myths from South and Central Americas were somehow inspired by monkeys.
So what? This will not make bigfoot real. This will not increase the odds of bigfoot being real.
 
Correa Neto said:
Sweet Holy Jeebus on a Toast...

"You can't prove there's no real bigfoot at the root of every single Native American wild-something-big or not, hairy or not, human-like or not" is as stupid as "you can't prove bigfoot is hiding behind a tree"! And it will not work as a pro-bigfoot argument.

Let's suppose some hairy wild people myth from West Africa was born from gorillas. Let's suppose some similar myths from South and Central Americas were somehow inspired by monkeys.
So what? This will not make bigfoot real. This will not increase the odds of bigfoot being real.
Click to expand...

I agee. Arguments based on opinions of Native American culture will never prove Bigfoot exists and likewise, will never prove it doesn't.

Somehow, a few members seem to try to associate my statement about the Cross River Gorilla being like Bigfoot because the "locals" considered them as "hairy people" with Native American culture and Bigfoot. I have not and will not do so.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I agee. Arguments based on opinions of Native American culture will never prove Bigfoot exists and likewise, will never prove it doesn't.

Somehow, a few members seem to try to associate my statement about the Cross River Gorilla being like Bigfoot because the "locals" considered them as "hairy people" with Native American culture and Bigfoot. I have not and will not do so.
Click to expand...

Your "likewise" does not exist in reality, though. You should have stopped typing at "exists".

I don't think anyone is trying to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist.

Skeptics can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, no one can, and there's absolutely no obligation to try, since it is the default position.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I agee. Arguments based on opinions of Native American culture will never prove Bigfoot exists and likewise, will never prove it doesn't.
Click to expand...

See #1268

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Somehow, a few members seem to try to associate my statement about the Cross River Gorilla being like Bigfoot because the "locals" considered them as "hairy people" with Native American culture and Bigfoot. I have not and will not do so.
Click to expand...

This doesn't even matter. Your analogy comparing some gorilla to bigfoot was a non sequitur anyway, and it has no future. You could just let it go and most people here wouldn't care.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
From your link:

"(CRG) habitat, with a total of 184 interviewer-administered questionnaires completed during a 4-week period. Eighty-six percent of people agreed that gorillas were totems (personal spiritual helpers or counterparts) of people living in the village. People who believed in human–gorilla totemic kinship practice did not eat or hunt gorillas, and they wanted gorillas to be protected in order to protect the practice. Most (87%), of the interviewees declared their support for gorilla conservation. The main motivation was the belief that when gorillas are killed, the human totemic counterpart will die as a result. Because of these traditions, the hunting of gorillas is taboo in all five villages surveyed."

Bolding mine. So I guess one could say an outside observer may get the impression these locals could be describing a mythical creature and not a flesh and blood animal? If that observer had never seen a Cross River Gorilla that is. To tell the difference between myth or reality, the observer relies on the knowledge that the Cross River Gorilla is real and has been discovered.

But what if it hadn't been discovered yet? One could apply the same logic as the opening post and rule out Biological being. Could you not?

Since these "totem" beliefs seem to be tied to a "personal spritual helper or counterpart". Seems magical or religious to me, kinda like the Yeti.

It's a good work. And it also looks like the surveyed areas were a fair representation. We rely on our previous knowledge of the Gorilla in this case to separate myth from reality. See how that works?
Click to expand...
Nicely done.

Pretending that the conclusion you draw in that post was your original position and not what you were arguing against with me.
:jaw-dropp
 
EHocking said:
Nicely done.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26614a7473561c161.gif[/qimg]
Pretending that the conclusion you draw in that post was your original position and not what you were arguing against with me.
:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did leave out the references you requested regarding the Gorillas being "hairy people" part. As it's fairy easy to locate. Here's three:

1. from: http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/scientific-classification.htm

"The name "gorilla" was derived from an ancient account by a Carthaginian explorer who sailed along the west coast of Africa nearly 2,500 years ago. Local people shared their name for the great ape with him - the rough translation of which meant "hairy person"."


2. from: http://gorillas-world.com/gorillas-and-humans.html

"The interactions between humans and gorillas are quite interesting. There are early writings in history that aren’t clear. There are stories about interactions with hairy humans that don’t talk. That has lead many researchers to believe what they came across weren’t people but actually gorillas in the wild. Since there aren’t any pictures to go with these writings though it can’t be known for sure."

3. from: http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=gorilla

gorilla (n.)
1847, applied to the apes (Troglodytes gorills) by U.S. missionary Thomas Savage, from Greek gorillai, plural of name given to wild, hairy people in a Greek translation of Carthaginian navigator Hanno's account of his voyage along the N.W. coast of Africa, c.500 B.C.E. Allegedly an African word.
 
Chris, regarding native myths and traditions pertaining to Bigfoot, which specifically do you think have the highest likelihood of being in fact based on interaction with actual Bigfoots living in their environment?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I agee. Arguments based on opinions of Native American culture will never prove Bigfoot exists and likewise, will never prove it doesn't.

Somehow, a few members seem to try to associate my statement about the Cross River Gorilla being like Bigfoot because the "locals" considered them as "hairy people" with Native American culture and Bigfoot. I have not and will not do so.
Click to expand...

Unbiased(*) study of NA legends can show what are their links to modern bigfoot lore. To date, the links so far are mostly modern fabrications built by bigfoot enthusiasts. As I wrote many times before, its myth twisting. Think about the cherry-picking needed to turn an "otter-man" in to bigfoot. There are plenty other examples around at this very thread. So, they can, in their original form, show the connection is artificial.


(*)Yes, this is not easy to do; but it is not impossible. The main difficulty would be to find a motivation to perform such a study IMHO.
 
dmaker said:
I'm confused and have perhaps lost track of the point being made. Chris, are you saying Bigfeets are gorillas?
Click to expand...

I think it was one of those argument from analogy deals, plus one of those "you can't prove native legends didn't refer to actual bigfoot" deals, which taken together still add up to nothing.
 
No, Chris is saying Bigfoot Researchers are like Africa Explorers, because of the Cross River Gorillas not Being chimpanzees. (I think)
 
dmaker said:
I'm confused and have perhaps lost track of the point being made. Chris, are you saying Bigfeets are gorillas?
Click to expand...

Programs!! Programs, get your Programs!

Ya can't figure out his argument without a program.
 
Correa Neto said:
To date, the links so far are mostly modern fabrications built by bigfoot enthusiasts. As I wrote many times before, its myth twisting. Think about the cherry-picking needed to turn an "otter-man" in to bigfoot. There are plenty other examples around at this very thread. So, they can, in their original form, show the connection is artificial.
Click to expand...

I think bigfooters would point to the fact that some modern American Indians believe in bigfoot. I would think that modern Native cultures have been infected by the dominant European cultures. I recall learning that some tribesman in the South Pacific started believing that a Beatles song was one of their traditional songs after interactions with Westerners.
 
kitakaze said:
Chris, regarding native myths and traditions pertaining to Bigfoot, which specifically do you think have the highest likelihood of being in fact based on interaction with actual Bigfoots living in their environment?
Click to expand...

I'd have to study each culture and language Kit and I don't have the time or desire to do so to find the most likely comparisons. I think it's likely some tribes had interactions with the creatures, sightings etc. I'm not big on trying to tie all Native American legends to Bigfoot though. To do so would be "legend twisting" as described by another poster above.

Only one description has interested me since I am from KY and have first hand knowledge of some of the limited Blackfoot history/culture here. (not the Blackfeet tribe of the West)

That one legend is the "Yeahoh" from Eastern KY. Pronounced "Yayhoo" in modern times. That word "Yeahoh" was shared with my father in the mid 1940's long before any media exposure of "Bigfoot" and described giant large hairy men that lived in the woods.

Although there have been attempts made to associate the "Yeahoh" with Gulliver's Travels, or stories of shipwrecked sailors, it seems to me that since few to none of the Blackfeet could likely read or obtain the book, I doubt they had much exposure to the literature trying to be associated with the legend. And the lack of an ocean here, would make shipwreck survivors another unlikely source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom