Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He was 10, his birthday was in November, muscadines ripen in the late summer, so late summer of 1942. I never asked for a date either, sorry, I was just a kid when I heard the story.


When, as in, what year approx, did you hear this story? My guesstimate, from the info given, is that it was sometime in the 1960's. This "encounter" happened in 1942. There was no "Bigfoot" in 1942. You mentioned that it was a "primate" looking thing. Can you recall exactly what you were told it was? Ape? Gorilla? Monkey?... Primate? (was it really referred to as a "primate"?) Or, was it Bigfoot/sasquatch? Would be inclined to think that, in 1942, that it would have been "some weird critter" or, even a monster. By the 1960's it became an "apeman", or Bigfoot. The implication is obvious.


...Most likely if a person says he was face to face with a bigfoot, he is either lying or hallucinating...

This. Except, the "hallucinating" part is a bit generous.
 
Last edited:
When, as in, what year approx, did you hear this story? My guesstimate, from the info given, is that it was sometime in the 1960's. This "encounter" happened in 1942. There was no "Bigfoot" in 1942. You mentioned that it was a "primate" looking thing. Can you recall exactly what you were told it was? Ape? Gorilla? Monkey?... Primate? (was it really referred to as a "primate"?) Or, was it Bigfoot/sasquatch? Would be inclined to think that, in 1942, that it would have been "some weird critter" or, even a monster. By the 1960's it became an "apeman", or Bigfoot. The implication is obvious.

Exactly where I was going with that question. I knew someone would pick up on it!
Since bigfoot as we know it wasn't invented back then when did the monster in the story morph into bigfoot?
 
Good catch of what? I was born in 1962, and eight years old when I first overheard this adult conversation between my parents, a couple of uncles/aunts , and grandparents. I asked a couple of questions about what it looked like. What Dad said was that it was a "large naked hairy black man" on all fours. Then he described the hands and eyes that he said didn't look human.

After pulling this apart, I'm thinking elderly African American transient that he startled or walked up on in the vineyard. If the old guy was asleep that would explain the "all fours" if he was rolling over to get up. Arthritic hands to explain the misshapen hands? Jaundice or natural pigment changes with aging to explain the sclera? I can't quiet figure out why he thought the guy was naked, but "hairy" might have only referred to an unkempt beard rather than all over hair like I assumed they were talking about.I wish these people were still alive so I could ask, unfortunately they aren't.

If Dad was hallucinating I don't think it would have been this one isolated incident, usually there would be more than one episode and associated with either mental or physical illness. No one ever mentioned that anything else unusual ever happened. Now can a 10 year old misinterpret a scary looking homeless guy as a monster? Absolutely they can.

Looking at this from the perspective of a parent I'm now wondering why the family thought this was an appropriate conversation to have while me and my younger siblings were there to listen. I also question why my grandfather went with "monster" instead of just a regular person and why you would encourage your child to think "monster". Why wouldn't you report this to the local sheriff when it happened? I don't get that at all. Maybe child rearing ideas were different then and kids weren't coddled like they are now.
 
Now can a 10 year old misinterpret a scary looking homeless guy as a monster? Absolutely they can.

Looking at this from the perspective of a parent I'm now wondering why the family thought this was an appropriate conversation to have while me and my younger siblings were there to listen. I also question why my grandfather went with "monster" instead of just a regular person and why you would encourage your child to think "monster". Why wouldn't you report this to the local sheriff when it happened? I don't get that at all. Maybe child rearing ideas were different then and kids weren't coddled like they are now.

Studying the background of the families beliefs might help you shape a better understanding. It's most likely not productive to use your experience as a parent in the generation you grew up in to question how your parents or what their parents thought was appropriate based on the world around them at that time and place.
 
Good catch of what?
After pulling this apart, I'm thinking elderly African American transient that he startled or walked up on in the vineyard. If the old guy was asleep that would explain the "all fours" if he was rolling over to get up. Arthritic hands to explain the misshapen hands? Jaundice or natural pigment changes with aging to explain the sclera? I can't quiet figure out why he thought the guy was naked, but "hairy" might have only referred to an unkempt beard rather than all over hair like I assumed they were talking about.I wish these people were still alive so I could ask, unfortunately they aren't.

There was a good catch in the timing. The story took place in 1942. You heard it in 1970. You don't think in that time the story might have changed? Especially when the first bigfootmania swept through with the PGF film? Maybe someone with better resources than I can point you to images of Mothman from the original "appearances" and how mothman is depicted today, by those very same individuals.

And your attempt at a reasonable explanation seems more contorted than your hobo.

Children lie.
People misidentify things, even mundane things. Constantly.
Bears exist.
Mange exists.

Reason would lead one to conclude that some combination of these things came together to explain your father's bigfoot story instead of some mangled story with racist undertones of a mangled black man.
 
We have a second-hand account... Something supposed to have been seen by a ten years-old kid in the early 40's; decades later the event was the subject of a conversation in 1970 or so, this talk was heard by an eight years-old child and now, in 2012 its being re-told...

Sorry, but why try to figure out what could be the cause of any given part of it when every single bit of the tale may not be what actually happened, if something really happened at all?

Remember, bogey man tales were not rare at all back then. Why tell them to kids? Can't you really figure out the reasons?
 
Good catch of what? I was born in 1962, and eight years old when I first overheard this adult conversation between my parents, a couple of uncles/aunts , and grandparents. I asked a couple of questions about what it looked like....

The catch, is that a boogey man story became a Bigfoot story ...
 
Last edited:
There was a good catch in the timing. The story took place in 1942. You heard it in 1970. You don't think in that time the story might have changed? Especially when the first bigfootmania swept through with the PGF film? Maybe someone with better resources than I can point you to images of Mothman from the original "appearances" and how mothman is depicted today, by those very same individuals.

And your attempt at a reasonable explanation seems more contorted than your hobo.

Children lie.
People misidentify things, even mundane things. Constantly.
Bears exist.
Mange exists.

Reason would lead one to conclude that some combination of these things came together to explain your father's bigfoot story instead of some mangled story with racist undertones of a mangled black man.

Oh I think it's pretty obvious that's what happened as to how the "monster" became bigfoot. Back then they called them woollyboogers, but they did have a name for it in the south, it just wasn't bigfoot. I don't know how the conversation got started, but considering the timing that must have been how the subject came up.

The bear population in Mississippi was almost decimated by 1932 to only twelve specimens, it makes it unlikely, although not impossible for him to have seen a bear. Chances are better that it was a person. That description happens to fit someone that is AA better than Caucasian.

My father was not lying according to what the family thinks based on his reaction and my grandfather's opinion of the damage. I don't think he saw bigfoot, I think it was a person.
 
We have a second-hand account... Something supposed to have been seen by a ten years-old kid in the early 40's; decades later the event was the subject of a conversation in 1970 or so, this talk was heard by an eight years-old child and now, in 2012 its being re-told...

Sorry, but why try to figure out what could be the cause of any given part of it when every single bit of the tale may not be what actually happened, if something really happened at all?

Remember, bogey man tales were not rare at all back then. Why tell them to kids? Can't you really figure out the reasons?

Correa, the story was told as if they all believed it and this was my main reason for my belief that bigfoot once existed, if not still today. My grandfather and parents were not uneducated people so I don't know why they wouldn't question it more, maybe for the same reason I never did, I don't know. Now I think it was just a person that frightened my Dad.
 
Oh I think it's pretty obvious that's what happened as to how the "monster" became bigfoot. Back then they called them woollyboogers, but they did have a name for it in the south, it just wasn't bigfoot. I don't know how the conversation got started, but considering the timing that must have been how the subject came up.

The monster became Bigfoot when hoaxers started leaving Bigfoot tracks..

The bear population in Mississippi was almost decimated by 1932 to only twelve specimens, .....
How reliable do you think that count was ?

My father was not lying according to what the family thinks based on his reaction and my grandfather's opinion of the damage. I don't think he saw bigfoot, I think it was a person.

There is no reason to believe your father did not report what he thought he saw, but that doesn't mean what he reported was accurate..
 
Correa, the story was told as if they all believed it and this was my main reason for my belief that bigfoot once existed, if not still today. My grandfather and parents were not uneducated people so I don't know why they wouldn't question it more, maybe for the same reason I never did, I don't know. Now I think it was just a person that frightened my Dad.

What is not clear, is when the character in your Pa's story got labeled as a Bigfoot.
Was this just you, looking back and thinking " It must have been a Bigfoot " ?
 
The monster became Bigfoot when hoaxers started leaving Bigfoot tracks..

I don't disagree with that, woollybooger or bigfoot, it's the same thing, probably hoaxed or just what amounted to urban legend back then.


How reliable do you think that count was ?

Very reliable since I got it from the Mississippi wildlife page, as of 2006 there was only 60, not sure what it is now after Katrina.



There is no reason to believe your father did not report what he thought he saw, but that doesn't mean what he reported was accurate..

I don't disagree with that either.
 
LOLOL... I hope your son grows up to have better sense than his daddy. :-)

You continue to evade demonstrating the wildlife enumeration literature showed evidence in favor of bigfoot. But you made that claim.

I'm not falling for the act. It's a little better than bigfootbookman's, but it is an act a lot of the 'footers play, pretending to be open-minded and seeing "both sides".

oopise! I see Volsquatch already chastised people falling for the act. Right. The fun is the power in manipulating other people. The more you get them to bend over backwards, begging you at your feet to be reasonable, groveling - the more power you feel.

The important thing about this act is to feed your targets just enough phony "progress" to keep them on the hook before they finally get sick of you.

IMG_1276.JPG


Every day of the week we are out in this stuff because we live here. About twenty yards to the left is a dead moose carcass. The two-year-old understands why he's dead but the one-year old is not mature enough yet.

My wife and I spoke about the things so important to us while at this spot, and one of the most important of them was how lies and deceptive behavior are copied by the children and handed down through the generations.

The irony of your ad-hom is that we don't lie to our children. We do not manipulate with the cheery face and feigned light humor masking the ugly deception and malicious intent underneath. Learning how to toy with people is indeed something you learn as a child, and something you pass on through the generations: not a belief in bigfoot, but the dark art of manipulation.

Look how the google fingers suddenly work when the need arises to defend bigfoot: you can find the year the patent is made on landscape ties. bully for you. What it proves is exactly that Volsquatch said: alternately playing dumb and being intelligent according to the manipulative need.

I look at these children and think how awful it is to turn them into people that smile at your face while they are underneath full of hate. See the smiley in the quote above? That is what manipulative people learn to do: show the smiling face as a lie to cover their true intentions.

And it seems so harmless - oh, it's just a bigfoot story. But what the literature tells us is that this isn't some isolated thing that happened once in your childhood. This is a trade you learned to perfect by watching it practiced by the adults. And it turns the child into a copy of the parents.

I congratulate you on being pretty cunning about the act - a lot of people here have fallen for it. But it is a pretty hollow victory if you have children. Because just as your parents passed this "gift" on to you - that gift will have also been passed on to your children. Not belief in bigfoot: the gift of toying with people, and feeling the power in manipulating them through deception.

That is the universal character trait of all that is woo: it cannot be defended by anything but manipulative, deceptive argumentation. So there is a self-selection bias in who will practice defense of woo. It is something I never got proficient at, and neither will my children.
 
What is not clear, is when the character in your Pa's story got labeled as a Bigfoot.
Was this just you, looking back and thinking " It must have been a Bigfoot " ?

It was mentioned occasionally afterwards, mainly when a show or something to do with bigfoot came on. You all are more than likely right about the relabeling of the the incident as bigfoot.
 
I just want to say I appreciate the commentary, whether it comes across that way or not, it kind of puts the final nail in the coffin for me. I feel like I can let this go and put my interest and energies into something a little more worthwhile now that there is no longer any personal investment. I might check on the DNA saga once in awhile until that runs it's course. Once again, thanks everyone.
 
Hey ABP

Is that a "Tag Alder" in the left foreground ? It looks similar to the ones we have growing up on our beach at camp in Ontario .
 
Cute kids, APB. I wish people were taking me to moose carcasses when I was a toddler.

Jodie, kudos to you for hanging in there through these threads. The whole point was for people to press you to *explain why* you believe(d), and often that's not an easy question to answer.
 
Alder yeah, very good for smoking salmon.

"Baker Bob" buried over 30 women he flew out this way in his supercub, then hunted them down and killed them mostly with a .223. Robert Hansen. I think they only found a couple dozen or so, but he had marked over 30 X's on an aviation map of this region, indicating where he had landed and engaged in his serial killing fetish.
 
Cute kids, APB. I wish people were taking me to moose carcasses when I was a toddler.

Jodie, kudos to you for hanging in there through these threads. The whole point was for people to press you to *explain why* you believe(d), and often that's not an easy question to answer.

You do ?? It would be very educational , Yes !

Yes.. Shrike could not have spelled it out any better. It was interesting to me to read your reasoning about why you believed in BF and also to see the analysis from those on the JREF.

I will miss a female JREF member that enjoys these topics ( ie. BF).. but I suppose there is always Patty ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom