• 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.

Checkmite said:
It certainly seems to be the case to me that Bigfoot enthusiasts have taken any Native American (or indeed, any worldwide aboriginal) legend of a bipedal figure that lives or lurks in the woods, even if the figure is explicitly described as just a man, or some type of spirit or ghost rather than a physical creature, and unilaterally declared that every one must be a reference to Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Hat tip to James Randi here: Nobody knows better than the con man that he is lying.

These are people with no conscience. It's okay to both hoax bigfoot into existence along with defiling native heritage.

This is not harmless legend-tripping. It's an awful lot of lying.
 
Bigfoot doesn't exist. The videos of this alleged creature are men in monkey suits. If Bigfoot existed one would have been killed or captured by now. Bigfoot if it existed would have by now voluntarily joined us. They would be better off being known than hiding out. Better food and accomodations to say the least.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Bigfoot doesn't exist. The videos of this alleged creature are men in monkey suits. If Bigfoot existed one would have been killed or captured by now. Bigfoot if it existed would have by now voluntarily joined us. They would be better off being known than hiding out. Better food and accomodations to say the least.
Click to expand...


Yes
Yes
Yes
What animal has ever "voluntarily joined us"?
Agreed.
 
I can see our hairy friend negotiating with the Smithsonian...

“On exhibit just 8 hours a day, Mr. Squatch. Your choice of foodstuffs, weekly shampoo, fluff, and dry, dental care, pedicures... What do you say?”

“Uh....Big-screen TV? I be Mariners fan.”
 
"If any of my contractual demands are not met... BZZT!, i'm gone. Got it?"

'yes Sir Mr. Squatch sir.'
 
Checkmite said:
What animal has ever "voluntarily joined us"?
Click to expand...

C06D41D2-D6C4-4E73-B7DA-2C2A72053025.jpeg
 
I'd argue that isn't an example. I would call canines becoming docile and friendly toward humans an adaptation to the pressure of humans' domestication campaign rather than a decision they voluntarily made. Dogs like humans now because we bred them to do that; we kept dogs that were easier to handle and....disposed of dogs that weren't.
 
Checkmite said:
I'd argue that isn't an example. I would call canines becoming docile and friendly toward humans an adaptation to the pressure of humans' domestication campaign rather than a decision they voluntarily made. Dogs like humans now because we bred them to do that; we kept dogs that were easier to handle and....disposed of dogs that weren't.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I read a neat thing that of course I can’t remember now, that suggested a kinda mutual adaptation. Basically, wild dogs would follow human settlements on the periphery, where humans dumped stuff, to get good eats. Adaptive traits then meant being more docile in order to kind of get closer in, and that it wasn’t directly human caused. That probably makes no sense the way I put it.
 
gabeygoat said:
I dunno. I read a neat thing that of course I can’t remember now, that suggested a kinda mutual adaptation. Basically, wild dogs would follow human settlements on the periphery, where humans dumped stuff, to get good eats. Adaptive traits then meant being more docile in order to kind of get closer in, and that it wasn’t directly human caused. That probably makes no sense the way I put it.
Click to expand...

This is the story told in the recent remake of "Cosmos" with Tyson; but the whole tale is essentially a massive case of [citation needed], and is only one of several proposed mechanisms of interaction. The problem with that particular story is that it might explain how humans grew to expect and tolerate wild dogs living on the fringes of their settlements; but that's not the same thing as "joining us". All manner of animals today including raccoons, bears, and buzzards similarly have adapted to living in close proximity (or even within) human settlements but those animals have decidedly not elected to "join us"; they will scavenge from humans but will still avoid direct contact with us whenever possible, and become aggressive with us if we get too close.

However the proximity-relationship arose, at some point humans - as a program - began physically capturing the wild dogs and selectively breeding them, no longer merely tolerating their nearby presence. The details are lost to time, but to me it seems highly unlikely this shift was an arrangement in which the dogs had a meaningful choice and could have chosen not to participate.
 
Checkmite said:
I'd argue that isn't an example. I would call canines becoming docile and friendly toward humans an adaptation to the pressure of humans' domestication campaign rather than a decision they voluntarily made. Dogs like humans now because we bred them to do that; we kept dogs that were easier to handle and....disposed of dogs that weren't.
Click to expand...

Really? I've domesticated all kinds of wild animals. By feeding them.

The most delicious was a moose. The only one who returned to the wild was a raven. But then again, I could have eaten him and didn't.

Wild canines learn that after the rifle shot there's going to be a gut pile and bones for them to feast upon after the humans take away the meat. So they come. Humans are stupid that way, leaving all that yummy intestinal goo.

I noticed with my own dogs that adding garlic, salt, cooking to perfection - they were thrilled for that kind of fare, leaping upon it when offered, while leaving raw meat and bone aside.

So it is really easy to see how this happened between man and canines. They did not have to capture the canines.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Really? I've domesticated all kinds of wild animals. By feeding them.
Click to expand...

You have tamed wild animals. Most definitions that I've seen seem to agree that a program of selective breeding that has a detectable impact on a species' genome is what makes "domestication".
 
Checkmite said:
You have tamed wild animals. Most definitions that I've seen seem to agree that a program of selective breeding that has a detectable impact on a species' genome is what makes "domestication".
Click to expand...

This leads to another line of Bigfoot questions: Why does a large primate/humanoid that hunts and or forages for food not eat human food or food scraps?

Where are the stories of Bigfoot dumpster diving, dumping out trashcans, or raiding coolers at camp sites? Bears, raccoons, monkeys and others do this daily around the world. Bears rip off car doors to get to food. Yet even during droughts and blight the Bigfoot doesn't seem to come out of the woods looking for easy chow.

Why is that?

The answer is there is not such thing as Bigfoot
 
Axxman300 said:
This leads to another line of Bigfoot questions: Why does a large primate/humanoid that hunts and or forages for food not eat human food or food scraps?
Click to expand...
Oh one poster told us a Bigfoot, or possibly a swamp ape, raided his pantry for cans of beans, also stealing a screwdriver to open them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom