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

[eerok]

Well, Chris, stories are stories, and people have been telling tales since they first made sounds. You're right not to put much stock in the legends, since there's no way to verify them--or at least the evidence that one would expect to exist if the legends were true is conspicuously absent. For example, there are no credible native artifacts that would support the physical reality of bigfoot.

For myself, I'd much rather that you leave this particular thread and tell us about your own sightings even in the moderated evidence thread, or wherever you like. Feel free to start a new thread if you have anything interesting to offer.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I agree eerok, it's all a matter of opinion, which is basically what I stated in the beginning. One is left to decide what is credible and what isn't based on their own knowledge and experience. The "Hairy Man" pictographs are very interesting but there's no way to prove credible or not beyond opinion.

I'll pass on sharing my sightings as I don't feel there's anything to be gained. Thanks for the invite though.

 

[Mudcat]

I'll pass on sharing my sightings as I don't feel there's anything to be gained. Thanks for the invite though.

Since you're unwilling or unable to share your sightings I must summarily conclude you have had no sightings.


Oh... I guess there's always that to gain.

 

[tsig]

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.

My leg just twitched, felt like someone was pulling on it.

 

[River]

I agree eerok, it's all a matter of opinion, which is basically what I stated in the beginning. One is left to decide what is credible and what isn't based on their own knowledge and experience. The "Hairy Man" pictographs are very interesting but there's no way to prove credible or not beyond opinion.

I'll pass on sharing my sightings as I don't feel there's anything to be gained. Thanks for the invite though.

The evidence leads to one place, and one place only. It leads to men (and women) hoaxing, lying, and misidentifying. That is your bigfoot. That is "where the evidence leads".

This song I'm producing this week reminds me a lot of the bigfoot phenomenon.

 

[William Parcher]

I guess it's a matter of personal opinion whether the Underwater Panther existed or still does exist. No body doesn't mean no beast - I guess. Also people don't talk about everything they see or do. They could have encountered Smilodons into the 17th century or later.

 

[Mister Earl]

I agree eerok, it's all a matter of opinion, which is basically what I stated in the beginning. One is left to decide what is credible and what isn't based on their own knowledge and experience. The "Hairy Man" pictographs are very interesting but there's no way to prove credible or not beyond opinion.

Reality is never subject to opinion. The existence of bigfoot is a matter of whether or not it exists in this reality. Therefore opinion has no value in the determination of this.

 

[Vortigern99]

I guess it's a matter of personal opinion whether the Underwater Panther existed or still does exist. No body doesn't mean no beast - I guess. Also people don't talk about everything they see or do. They could have encountered Smilodons into the 17th century or later.

Yeah! Also, unicorns. It's a matter of opinion whether ancient tales of these animals witnessed by our European ancestors are true accounts or not. There is no way to prove it either way, so you can't tell me unicorns aren't real because I seen one.

Plus, leprechaun bones have been discovered in Indonesia, so we know for a fact they existed!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Since you're unwilling or unable to share your sightings I must summarily conclude you have had no sightings.


Oh... I guess there's always that to gain.

Did it ever occur to you that your conclusions may be wrong? About a great many things.

 

[William Parcher]

Did it ever occur to you that your conclusions may be wrong? About a great many things.

Return of the Jedi (1983). Almost a direct quoting of The Emperor.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yeah! Also, unicorns. It's a matter of opinion whether ancient tales of these animals witnessed by our European ancestors are true accounts or not. There is no way to prove it either way, so you can't tell me unicorns aren't real because I seen one.

Plus, leprechaun bones have been discovered in Indonesia, so we know for a fact they existed!

Search "Elk dogs" You'll find it was one of the Native American attempts used to describe a horse. Now that's interesting.

I would guess nobody is out there looking for half dog and half elk beasts. We use our knowledge and experience to determine what animal they were talking about, horses.

As far as a unicorn, I'd have to see it live in person to believe it. No matter if your claim is true or not.

The "hobbit" bones you bring up are actually a great example of how some mythological tales of little people may have been authenticated. I think it would be a wild stretch to say they were leprechauns though. with the distance between them and all.

 

[tsig]

Did it ever occur to you that your conclusions may be wrong? About a great many things.

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." -

O. C.

Didn't work for him either.

 

[tsig]

Search "Elk dogs" You'll find it was one of the Native American attempts used to describe a horse. Now that's interesting.

I would guess nobody is out there looking for half dog and half elk beasts. We use our knowledge and experience to determine what animal they were talking about, horses.

As far as a unicorn, I'd have to see it live in person to believe it. No matter if your claim is true or not.

The "hobbit" bones you bring up are actually a great example of how some mythological tales of little people may have been authenticated. I think it would be a wild stretch to say they were leprechauns though. with the distance between them and all.

As far as a bigfoot, I'd have to see it live in person to believe it. No matter if your claim is true or not.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I guess it's a matter of personal opinion whether the Underwater Panther existed or still does exist. No body doesn't mean no beast - I guess. Also people don't talk about everything they see or do. They could have encountered Smilodons into the 17th century or later.

I guess if I were investigating the myths of the "Underwater Panther" I'd start by tracing this story back to its roots if possible. If the tribes that first coined the term were Atlantic or Pacific coast based for example, I'd likely look into any stories possibly concerning sharks. Remember "Elk Dogs"?

I wouldn't place much effort on a saber tooth cat investigation either, but heck, some locals in South Africa I believe were eating fish that were thought to have been extinct since the dinosaur, the coelacanth. So who knows? I think Arthur C Clarke put it best when he said something to the effect that unknown creatures are often very well known by locals and often eaten by locals as well.

 

[William Parcher]

Fun with Indian Speak...

Horse = elk dog
Elk = flower deer
Dog = tall shrew
Deer = tasty coyote
Shrew = elk spirit
Porcupine = hairy man
Coyote = sneaky man
Man = walking otter
Cougar = deer snake
Snake = running stick
Fish = wet bird
Bird = flying cricket

 

[Vortigern99]

Search "Elk dogs" You'll find it was one of the Native American attempts used to describe a horse. Now that's interesting.

I would guess nobody is out there looking for half dog and half elk beasts. We use our knowledge and experience to determine what animal they were talking about, horses.

In what sense are phrases coined by various tribes "attempts used to describe a horse"? They're words, not "attempts". Is the English word horse a mere "attempt" to describe a horse, previously called equus by the Romans, or caballo by the Spainish? Using known words in unique combinations to refer to new objects, ideas or animals is commonplace and universal across languages. You're not making any sense here.

As far as a unicorn, I'd have to see it live in person to believe it. No matter if your claim is true or not.

There comes a point, after careful and intense and organized searching for centuries, when absence of evidence must mean that evidence is probably not forthcoming. Unicorn, meet bigfoot.

The "hobbit" bones you bring up are actually a great example of how some mythological tales of little people may have been authenticated.

It is absolutely no such thing. Acknowledging the existence of the genetic disorder dwarfism in a population of any size does not substantiate "mythological tales of little people". Your claims are completely absurd.

I think it would be a wild stretch to say they were leprechauns though. with the distance between them and all.

Hobbits are English, leprechauns are Irish. How, in your fascinating worldview, can hobbits (created by an Englishman in the early 20th century) be a more likely "authentication" of Indonesian little people than leprechauns (created in the Middle Ages in Irish folk tales)? I don't think a single sentence in your post makes any kind of rational sense.

 

[William Parcher]

Shark = underwater eagle
Eagle = power friend
Bluegill = underwater panther
Underwater = upside down sky

 

[Vortigern99]

Fish = wet bird

When tears start flowing on account of your splitting sides you know you've got comedy genius on your hands. This one actually made me hiccup.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

In what sense are phrases coined by various tribes "attempts used to describe a horse"? They're words, not "attempts". Is the English word horse a mere "attempt" to describe a horse, previously called equus by the Romans, or caballo by the Spainish? Using known words in unique combinations to refer to new objects, ideas or animals is commonplace and universal across languages. You're not making any sense here.



There comes a point, after careful and intense and organized searching for centuries, when absence of evidence must mean that evidence is probably not forthcoming. Unicorn, meet bigfoot.



It is absolutely no such thing. Acknowledging the existence of the genetic disorder dwarfism in a population of any size does not substantiate "mythological tales of little people". Your claims are completely absurd.



Hobbits are English, leprechauns are Irish. How, in your fascinating worldview, can hobbits (created by an Englishman in the early 20th century) be a more likely "authentication" of Indonesian little people than leprechauns (created in the Middle Ages in Irish folk tales)? I don't think a single sentence in your post makes any kind of rational sense.

If you had actually researched, you would have found "hobbit" is the nickname given to Homo floresiensis. Please don't let your zeal to attack get ahead of your ability to do so.

 

[Mister Earl]

You're seriously accusing others of Zeal? Do you have no mirrors in your home?

Reality check, mate. You're trying to say that legends in other cultures are a mythological animal, and you're basing that purely off of personal preference and wishful thinking, given you have no actual bigfoot and have no way of knowing what specifically a bigfoot is or what it does. How do you know it doesn't burrow and live its entire life under ground? How do you know it's not purely a quadruped? You don't, because nobody has ever had one to study, and likely never will.

Your entire argument is wishful thinking and personal preference. Reality has no part of it. And you're fueling your entire argument with nothing but zeal.

So, please. We're trying to be kind here. There's no cause for you to carry that armload of rocks into that glass house.