• 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.

I believe that it is shrinking in noticible ways. I'm not talking about the total number of people who believe at any given time. I'm talking about how the argument for Bigfoot is being forced to redefine itself in the face of skepticism. It is painting itself into an increasingly smaller corner. This comes from a combination of their own proclamations and public arguments with skeptics. It is a conflicting dynamic that resembles predator/prey relationships. Both evolve over time with no purpose other than to continually 'pick each others' locks'. Each side 'believes' in its own righteousness and the necessity of self-preservation.
Absolutely. Its much like the role of God in the face of science. The better science gets at explaining things, the smaller a role there is for God. So bigfoot gets pushed into smaller and smaller conceptual areas as science and field work fail to find evidence and one of the results is crazy claims like invisible dimension hopping sasquatch.

So, I agree completely that this is more a phenomenon of the human psyche and how we can cling to beliefs in spite of increasing evidence to the contrary. But, its still important to examine the claims and expose them when they are false and verify them when they are true. Especially when those claims rest on scientific (or pseudo-scientific) pillars. Its one thing to say "I believe" and quite another to say "I believe and here is scientific proof to supports it".
 
Last edited:
I believe that it is shrinking in noticible ways. ...

You're right that this discussion isn't tangential to the OP and if after this post you would like to continue it then I would suggest moving it to 'Another Bigfoot Thread', which seems most appropriate.

That said, your points in that post are very astute and well-observed and I completely concur with your thoughts on how bigfootery and its skeptics influence eachother but I'm not sure if I can agree that it is shrinking in noticable ways. I think if you look at the way things have been playing out over the last year or so that strong skepticism has delivered some major blows to bigfootery but I think the voice of bigfootery has only gotten louder. I think the perpetuators have had some successes in terms of getting heard and the subject as a whole is getting more popular in general.

Unless I'm misconstruing your meaning, I think what you say here is one of the reasons for that growth:

Belief in BF can continue ad infinitum even without any confirmatory evidence and also with an increasingly powerful skeptical position. But skepticism must stop in its tracks the moment a body is delivered.
 
Last edited:
Michael Behe is the token scientist in support of creationism (intelligent design) in the same way that Jeff Meldrum is for Bigfootery. A credentialed expert says that my side is correct.
 
...she says "One of the things that, as an archaeologist, solidifies that this is a real animal is the Native Americans have literally a hundred names, and I'm still discovering them, for this animal and it is... Such as stemahah, omah, sasquatch, skookum. There's many, many names and (into the statement I already quoted).

I'm afraid that I have to strongly disagree with that statement and I don't think she properly considered what she was saying.

I'm sure you're right, and I won't make a big issue out of her statement.
Just wanted to make sure people didn't think that this was the normal approach of archaeologists.
 
...she says "One of the things that, as an archaeologist, solidifies that this is a real animal is the Native Americans have literally a hundred names, and I'm still discovering them, for this animal and it is... Such as stemahah, omah, sasquatch, skookum. There's many, many names and (into the statement I already quoted).

I'm afraid that I have to strongly disagree with that statement and I don't think she properly considered what she was saying.

I'm sure you're right, and I won't make a big issue out of her statement.
Just wanted to make sure people didn't think that this was the normal approach of archaeologists.
 
I don't know if this means anything, nor do I know exactly where to go with this - but here it is.

In Real Life:

Michael Behe is a Christian.
Jeff Meldrum is a Mormon.
Kathy Strain is a...
 
I was about to write something roughly in the lines of what Maldon wrote.

K., I do think she really thought about what she said. People may reach different conclusions based on the same data set. She reached a conclusion which is different from ours, for reasons that we don't know and perhaps we are not even supposed to know.

We've seen several times footers complaining about skeptics not accepting their conclusions and that theirs was the "true" ones. One of them even once wrote something like "they do look at the evidence, they just don't understand it". We should be carefull not to get caught at a similar trap.

Moving on, WP touched in a line of reasoning that sometimes I privately venture in to also. However, I usually come back from this path pretty soon, since I must take in to account the fact that most people in the world are religious in one way or another. I also have no data on how these people would tender the idea of real bigfeet wandering around the woods (and in some cases, at their backyards).

I must conceed that quite possibly faith creates a place where belief in all sorts of fringe subjects can set roots and grow. But I think its a very complicated relationship, and many variables must be taken in to account. Even if we restrict ourselves only to Christians, belief in a given fringe subject will be encouraged or not depending on official doctrines, interpretations of the scripture, personal beliefs, etc. Using a possibly extreme example, some would oppose at once the idea of a bigfoot belonging to the Homo genus, since this would deny the " man was created at god's image" line. On the other hand, Christians from another variant would love it, for in their mind this would deny evolution.

What this has to do with the topic?
Simple, bigfoot myth will have different meanings for different individuals. A modern myth, built over older ones and being recycled and/or incorporated in to new mythologies.
 
However, I usually come back from this path pretty soon, since I must take in to account the fact that most people in the world are religious in one way or another.

But scientists, in particular, differ in that respect as compared to the population in general. This is especially true in the biological sciences or those that have a relationship to a biological entity. Archaeology is a study of the human animal within a certain context. In that respect, it is not the same as geology, physics or chemistry.

Right now we are talking about people who have a strong religious belief (faith) in an actual entity that may be known as God. They cannot put their hands on it in the same way that you could do with a Bigfoot body. Yet they still have faith that it is "out there". Bigfoot belief could be a very easy transition from that base of belief. Suddenly, the N/A stories of Bigfoot don't look any more like a myth than your own belief in God. Getting your hands on the body of God is no more necessary than the same for Bigfoot - to maintain a firm belief (faith). Many avid Bigfooters have even declared that they wouldn't be surprised if a body is never found. The animal is simply too elusive, smart, buries its dead, or carcasses simply rot away before discovery.
 
Other notable names in Bigfootery...

Grover Krantz was a Mormon.
Bob Gimlin is a Christian.
Alton Higgins is a Christian.

I believe that there would be others found to be tied to a religious faith with a bit of research or just asking around.
 
It occurs to me that in Belize, I saw howler monkeys hanging out in the trees all over the place. Known trade networks existed between Maya civilization and many civilizations north of there. It is possible that native American myths were reporting some permutation of howler monkey stories. Conceivably, one could have been captured and taken on tour in a Barnam and Bailey sort of way.

Is this crazy?
 
A freind of mine was just up here from south america he had no idea I was into bigfoot research .
I asked him if he had seen any strange animals down there his eyes lit up and said yes I saw a big monkey .
So he went on to tell me that he asked all the locals about it and they told him they are just a myth there not here .
It was only the size of a big chimp but he swears he saw what he saw so you see even people that spend a lot of time in the jungle will never see everything there .
He got luckey just like I did except Ive seen bigfoot more then one time .
 
That said, your points in that post are very astute and well-observed and I completely concur with your thoughts on how bigfootery and its skeptics influence eachother but I'm not sure if I can agree that it is shrinking in noticable ways. I think if you look at the way things have been playing out over the last year or so that strong skepticism has delivered some major blows to bigfootery but I think the voice of bigfootery has only gotten louder. I think the perpetuators have had some successes in terms of getting heard and the subject as a whole is getting more popular in general.

This is an example of the 'shrinking' of Bigfootery. Mangler explained to Crow Logic that it is impossible to drive 105 miles in 30 minutes. He responds with the logic of a crow to say that "as fact checking goes there is no such thing as fact checking when it comes to the PGF. Its all been said, re-said and debated." The crow is saying that the 105 miles cannot be established as a fact. If it was impossible to drive 105 miles in 30 minutes, some Bigfooter would have already pointed that out and therefore Paul Vella would not have said it in the first place. Because the madman across the water said it, it's just as valid as any other claim.

This is the shrinking of Bigfootery and Crow Logic is a member of that group. He has a special problem if he wants to go to Paul and verify that that info is correct. Paul now runs the BFF. So he is like a pastor at a church of Bigfoot. Crow can't even start to ask Paul to verify all that he said about the PGF in the public forum of BFF. The reason is because madman made a whole slew of errors about the PGF that can be checked out. Paul can't just apologize for being blatently slack and basically making stuff up on-the-fly, because to do so would force him to correct his errors. That leads directly to the things that make the PGF look hoaxy. It's no different than standing up in church in front of the congregation and telling the pastor that Genesis is all wrong and that God didn't create all the animals.

You can watch the shrinking of Bigfootery in action right now on BFF. You could say that Bigfootery will make sure that its own minions get all the facts right so that the shrinkage won't happen. But they won't. It's much more important to have believers inside your church than making sure that they all have their facts in order. Bigfootery is very much like a religion.
 
This is an example of the 'shrinking' of Bigfootery.

...You can watch the shrinking of Bigfootery in action right now on BFF. You could say that Bigfootery will make sure that its own minions get all the facts right so that the shrinkage won't happen. But they won't. It's much more important to have believers inside your church than making sure that they all have their facts in order. Bigfootery is very much like a religion.
I can't help but think Crow Logic scratching the litter in Paul Vella's box isn't an example of shrinkage as much as it is typical footer contorting or just business as usual.

Crow Logic is the consumate bigfoot enthusiast when found to be perpetuating PGF stinkers. 'Well, the facts are unknowable so we're all the same.' CL isn't ready for Thunderdome.

I would wonder how the number of people catching that would compare with the number of new, young bigfoot enthusiasts spawned from Monster Quest episodes.
 
I can't help but think Crow Logic scratching the litter in Paul Vella's box isn't an example of shrinkage as much as it is typical footer contorting or just business as usual.

The constant necessity of contorted and simply false arguments is the shrinkage. The arguments that CL is using are coming from Paul's pulp fictionalization of the history of the PGF. Paul now runs the BFF and sets the tone.

CL isn't ready for Thunderdome.

Nobody arguing for the authenticity of the PGF can be ready for Thunderdome. The underlying reason for this is because the film is a hoax.

I would wonder how the number of people catching that would compare with the number of new, young bigfoot enthusiasts spawned from Monster Quest episodes.

You can see a whole new crop of believers on BFF. Most of them are clueless about the serious problems with the PGF and the existence of BF in general. But they will absorb the blatent misinformation that is passed around by other Bigfooters. In that respect, they make good cult members even if nothing they say makes any sense to a skeptic or anyone who genuinely researches.

A bunch of guys claim to have worn the suit. Nobody ever finds dead bears. Thousands of credible people have claimed encounters with Bigfoot, and they can't all be wrong. These people are embraced and nurtured within the church of Bigfoot. They have the one thing that counts... they believe.

Popularity of Bigfoot expands while the vailidity of their arguments shrinks.
 
But scientists, in particular, differ in that respect as compared to the population in general. This is especially true in the biological sciences or those that have a relationship to a biological entity.
Scientists may not be that different. We're all humans and raised roughly under the same broad cultural umbrella (Western civilization), after all.

I know several professionals (in the academic and also in the industry) for whom scientific methodology and critical thinking are integral, essential parts of their trades. They use them, and use them well. However, they have what in some cases could be described as a blind spot. Religion and some woo beliefs find their places at those spots.

Please note that the beliefs of these persons are varied; they belong to a number of religions and very few of them go frequently to a church, for example. Among the paleontologists I know, for example, there's a mormom and an ex-Jesuit... I've witnessed all sorts of reactions to fringe subjects among people who could be labelled as scientists. All I can offer are nearly worthless anedoctal evidences. My biased nearly useless sampling indicates woo beliefs tend to be more common among people who believe in a god but do not follow a specific religion.

Archaeology is a study of the human animal within a certain context. In that respect, it is not the same as geology, physics or chemistry.
Ah, the "hard" x "soft" sciences conflict... I would say cutural or social anthropology and sociology instead of archeology.

Right now we are talking about people who have a strong religious belief (faith) in an actual entity that may be known as God. They cannot put their hands on it in the same way that you could do with a Bigfoot body. Yet they still have faith that it is "out there". Bigfoot belief could be a very easy transition from that base of belief. Suddenly, the N/A stories of Bigfoot don't look any more like a myth than your own belief in God. Getting your hands on the body of God is no more necessary than the same for Bigfoot - to maintain a firm belief (faith). Many avid Bigfooters have even declared that they wouldn't be surprised if a body is never found. The animal is simply too elusive, smart, buries its dead, or carcasses simply rot away before discovery.
Again, one would have to know more about how their faiths affect their everiday lives. This would be a fascinating sociological study, I believe. Several questions are raised...
 
Heck, if seeing a howler monkey is being lucky, I am a very lucky person...

Those monkeys are not exactly rare here in Brazil. They can adaptable critters and can be found from the Amazon jungles to the woods at southern Brazil. And I've seen groups of them in Northern, Southeastern and Southern Brazil.

Just an example of how contradictory anedoctal data, such as the one exposed at creek's last post, can be.
 
Last edited:
The next mythical being that I will examine as a supposed correlary to bigfoot is the omah of the Yurok people of the lower Klamath River in northwestern California. Bigfooters tell us that the omah is known to the Yurok as a hairy giant and 'The Boss of the Mountain'. It is also said that omah or oh-mah is also a word meaning 'Boss of the Woods' to the Hupa tribe, also of Northern California.

Some preliminary links on the Yurok:

http://www.yuroktribe.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurok_Tribe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurok_traditional_narratives

(Last link contains further links to online narratives.)

The first and main source that seemed to keep popping up in my searches was a page at Bobbie Short's bigfoot website Bigfoot Encounters under the heading "O-mah - Oh-mah - Omah U-mah - Tintah-k'iwungxoya'n R ac ne oomah ah - Creek Devil | Boss of the Mountain" Here's a link:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/yurok_terms.htm

It details that (paraphrased) the various spellings symbolized a hair-covered 'boss of the mountain' or in some instances local 'creek devils' that were once believed to poison streams in the Blue Creek region of the Siskiyou Wilderness of Northern California.

It goes on to state that "U'ma'a also means a kind of sorcerer and his bundle of poisoned arrows..."

The importance of that will soon make itself apparent.

In doing a linguistic search my first step was to consult UC Berkley's online Yurok Dictionary:

http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~yurok/web/lexicon.html

Finding no luck with omah and various spellings I found what I was looking for after entering 'devil' as an English translation which produced the following entry (bolding mine):

'uma'ah ['ue-ma-'ah] • n • devil, Indian devil R272 JE41
Semantic domain: people

[Lexicon record # 4456]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Audio recording (click to listen)

'uma'ah ['ue-ma-'ah] "Indian devil" (spoken by Jessie Van Pelt)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text examples (2 examples in 2 cited passages)

Wehlowaa chi hegok'w 'we- sa'awor noohl 'esi pkwecho'l ku 'uma'ah.
We-hlo-waa chee he-gokw' 'we-sa-'a-wor noohl 'e-see pkwe-chol' kue 'ue-ma-'ah.
Its shadow came ten times before the devil appeared.
— Various speakers, Sentences in R. H. Robins's Yurok Language, 1951
  YL:416 | full context

Raak ni 'uma'ah.
Raak nee 'ue-ma-'ah.
Creek devil.

— Georgiana Trull, Yurok Language Conversation Book, chapter 16: "Where are you coming from?", 2003
  GT3-16:26 | full context | Yurok audio: GT3-16-26.mp3

Doing a further search on 'creek devils' and the Yurok I came across the following site for the book Cry for Luck
Sacred Song and Speech Among the Yurok, Hupa, and Karok Indians of Northwestern California
by Richard Keeling.

Citation (and link):

Keeling, Richard. Cry for Luck: Sacred Song and Speech Among the Yurok, Hupa, and Karok Indians of Northwestern California. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1992. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8g5008k8/

From part one 'Aboriginal Religion', chapter three 'The Sacred Landscape' under the heading 'Monsters and Creek Devils' (p.49,50):

Aside from beasts such as these, the Yuroks interviewed by Kroeber shortly after 1900 also believed that ghosts of dead could haunt the living and corpses sometimes came back to life (1925:47). This was not discussed in conversations I had during the 1970s, but Indians I knew often mentioned a creature known by the Yurok


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

― 50 ―
word uma'a and called "devil" or "Indian devil" in English. The uma'a were thought to live in dark, bushy thickets, and they had magical arrows of burning flint with which they could kill someone who passed nearby. The arrows (which come in sets of twelve or more) sometimes fell into the hands of humans, and then they could be used for sorcery.[3] A person who does this is also called an "Indian devil" and some are accused or suspected of practicing this form of black magic even today. Waterman cites at least one location that was known to have been frequented by uma'a around the turn of the century (1920:238).

Here it becomes clear that the omah/bigfoot correlary invented by bigfoot enthusiasts is truly nothing more than wishful thinking.

Incidentally, during my searches I came across a page at the Bigfoot Researchers Organization website devoted to native myths/traditions and bigfoot:

http://www.bfro.net/legends/penutian2.htm

I find it necessary to quote here (bolding mine):

Wappeckquemow and Omaha
From a letter just recieved from Judge Roseborough, I am enabled to close this chapter with some new and valuable facts regarding the religious ideas of certain tribes--not accurately specified--of the north-west portion of Upper California. The learned judge has given unusual attention to the subject of which he writes, and his opportunities for procuring information must have been frequent during ten years of travel and residence in the districts of the northern counties of California:--

Among the tribes in the neighborhood of the Trinity river1 is found a legend relating to a certain Wappeckquemow, who was a giant, and apparently the father and leader of a pre-human race like himself. He was expelled from the country that he inhabited--near the mouth of the Klamath--for disobeying or offending some great god, and a curse was pronounced against him, so that not even his descendants should return to that land. On the expulsion of these Anakim, the ancestors of the people to whom this legend belongs came down from the north-west, a direction of migration, according to Judge Roseborough, uniformly adhered to in the legends of all the tribes of north-west California.

These new settlers, however like their predecessors of the giant race, quarreled with the great god and were abandoned by them to their own devices, being given over into the hands of certain evil powers or devils. Of these the first is Omaha2, who poesessing the shape of a grizzly bear, is invisible and goes about everywhere bringing sickness and misfortune on mankind. Next there is Makalay, a fiend with a horn like a unicorn; he is swift as the wind and moves by great leaps like a kangaroo. The sight of him is usually death to mortals. There is, thirdly, a dreadful being called Kalicknateck, who seems a faithful reproduction of the great thunder-bird of the north: thus Kalicknateck "is a huge bird that sits on the mountain-peak, and broods in silence over his thoughts until hungry; when he will sweep down over the ocean, snatch up a large whale, and carry it to is mountain-throne, for a single meal."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Footnotes:

1 The Trinity/Klamath river region of Northern Calfornia will be recognized by many as the site of many Bigfoot sightings, including the famous Patterson film.

2 "Omaha" bears a resemblance to the word Yurok term for Bigfoot "Omah", so perhaps the judge is referring to the Yurok as originators of the legend?
The word "Omaha" indeed seems to be a variant of "Omah" in this case. Omaha (as in the Nebraska city name) is the name of a native tribe known as U-Mo'n-Ho'n "dwellers on the bluff".

When ones looks at this BFRO page it is immediately apparent they are encouraging the reader to consider both "Wappeckquemo" and "Omaha" as bigfoot candidates.

Again we return to 'Cry For Luck', same chapter under the heading 'Heroic Beings' (p.47,48)(bolding mine):

Heroic Beings
In this and the sections that follow, the multitude of spiritual beings which animated the environment are divided into categories for descriptive purposes. This is only a convenience and does not reflect a classification that Indians themselves would be likely to express. The discussion focuses mainly on characters of Yurok mythology, but similar beings were also known by the Hupa and Karok. For example, Wohpekemeu figures in several Hupa myths, where he is identified as Yumantuwinyai. In Karok mythology Wohpekemeu is sometimes equated with Coyote, as shown by a text in which Coyote invents childbirth (Harrington 1932:25-27), and other times equated with a character called Yeruxbihii (Kroeber and Gifford 1980:288-289).

While Wohpekemeu is generally portrayed as having the physical appearance of a human being, another heroic figure called Pulekukwerek ("At the North End of Creation Sharp One") was a monstrous creature, covered with horns or spines, who smoked tobacco but never ate food. Like Wohpekemeu, he lived across the ocean, but Pulekukwerek avoided females altogether and spent all of his time in the sweathouse. Thus, as character models, these two superheroes seem to represent opposing tendencies toward virility


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

― 48 ―
on the one hand and asceticism on the other. In Yurok mythology, Pulekukwerek is mainly known for having killed off the sea serpents who inhabited the estuary at the mouth of the Klamath (Waterman 1920:228). The physical characteristics of these beings often seem fantastic and contradictory from a modern American perspective. Thus, for example, Pelintsiek ("Great Dentalium") was conceived as a dentalium shell as large as a sturgeon, but in narrative texts he is also able to speak and walk like a man (Kroeber 1976:200-204).

Other Yurok deities included Megwomits, the bearded dwarf known mainly as a provider of acorns and other vegetable products, and imposing natural entities such as Sun, Moon, Earthquake, and The Thunders. Like Pelintsiek, each of these awesome beings had human qualities despite the apparent contradictions this sometimes implied, and each was responsive to the thoughts and deeds of human beings. The Thunders, for example, were known as patrons of men who wanted to become stronger and more fearsome. To obtain their help, one would go to a mountain lake in the dead of night; he would dive to the bottom, holding his breath until he nearly lost consciousness, and then the man would not only obtain power for fighting but would also get luck for obtaining wealth (Spott and Kroeber 1942:163).

While the heroes described here are identified in narratives collected early in this century, not all were mentioned by Yuroks I knew during the 1970s. Wohpekemeu is by far the most important heroic figure in mythic tales or anecdotes told by modem Yuroks.
It is clear in reading these two sources that "Wappeckquemo" and "Wohpekemeu" are the same - a godlike figure to which no correlary to bigfoot can be made as is the case with omah.
 

Back
Top Bottom