Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Hairy Man]

Then you might agree that anthropological observations have done nothing in terms of establishing the validity of claims of a creature so widely reported. Socio-anthropological obsevations on the other hand...

No, I would agree that I haven't done anything in terms of establishing the validity of claims of this creature. I don't represent the talent or knowledge available in the anthropological world on this subject.

For this discussion, North America.

Your question was: What do you think is the most likely cause for the completely widespread (North America) nature of the bigfoot phenomenom?

There are only two choices. Option 1: Either this animal is real and has adapted to a variety of environments (including size/color differences, which in the 15,000 or so years that the land bridge was open and available for evolutionary adaptations to occur. This should not be interpreted to mean I think that adaptation is possible in all environments).

OR

Option 2: There is a widespread physiological niche that bigfoot fills for the human race.

I am currently supporting option 1.

 

[LTC8K6]

I apologize greatly LTC for not getting back to you sooner.

No problem. It just seemed that people were accepting the linking of the names as a fact, and I recalled discussing it earlier and didn't remember the link being quite so strong. That is, there was far from an agreement that kushtaka meant bigfoot.

Maybe it does mean bigfoot, but I've never seen any info that would allow the idea to be taken as a fact from which you could build a case.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
With great apprehension.

Bears are known dangers.

Bipedal apes?

Great minds like that of Mad Horn insist they don't exist. Even the Fish and Game Dept. don't list them in their regs.

Shooting one is a freebie. There's no need to risk life or limb tracking a wounded one, because "they don't exist", right?

Ok but they still follow them right Fudd? That was the question.

The answer is "sometimes."

And even if you've got the "balls" to follow a wounded bear into the brush, there's no guarantee that you'll find him.

People follow all kinds of large dangerous injured critters all the time.

"All the time"?

Got some evidence of that?

To me it's yet another convenient excuse as to why Bigfoot Nation doesn't have a body yet.

Not a hunter, are you?

 

[LTC8K6]

The NASI report doesn't seem to be anything a serious person should ever refer to. I thought it was no longer taken seriously.

 

[Hairy Man]

I don't see the point of that. That and speaking as a Native American or an anthropologist is irrelevant to the claim you're making in the certainty that sasquatch exist.

You are the one, who above, stated: "Native Americans having bigfoot in their traditions is not a fact at all but an interpretation by those who are seeking beyond objectivity support for the notion that bigfoot is a real species."

You are inferring that bigfooters have been pushing bigfoot on NAs, and that NAs, at no time, have stated that creatures in their own stories, baskets, songs, totems, etc. are bigfoot. That is untrue. They, themselves, identify those references as large bipedal, hairy man-like creatures (please note that no they do not use the term "bigfoot" but why should they? That term was invented in the 1950s). Again, I can't seem to see where all the heartburn is coming from. It's ok for native people to believe in an animal that you don't.

That Hairy Man is synonymous with bigfoot is your own extrapolation so it should be taken to you and nobody else.

Nope, the tribes identify it themselves. You can argue with them about their own culture.

I'm not expecting too much from you and you are significantly ignoring the traditions of other cultures when you assert a certainty in the existence of bigfoot and Native American traditions as support of them.

How can I ignore something I don't know? Guess what, there are all kinds of cultures outside the U.S. that I don't know anything about...that's why anthropologists are specialists!

 

[LAL]

They can claim all they want to be a serious organization, but they aren't (any longer). They aren't looking for evidence on expeditions...they are looking for participants to have a good time and have an "experience" sitting in cars along roads. Of course that addresses why they don't find anything...you'd have to actually look.

Now that's not fair. Here's proof they got out of their cars last summer.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16184&pid=341152&st=0&

I wonder if they brought any food?

 

[kitakaze]

Obviously, you have also failed to read Glickman.

Yet again, here is the link, and here (for the reading impaired) are the words:

Huntster, as a friend I admit I've yet to fully read Glickman. Once I attempt to do so, should I fail, I'll let you know. Once I have read Glickman I'm wondering if I'll be more inclined to think sasquatches exist. You see, IMO, the further one carries a proponent position of bigfoot, the more complex the supportive arguments become. None of it seems to compensate for the failure to identify a creature purported to inhabit a wide range of areas across North America. The opposition is very simple. If we are to accept claims of a living species then that species must do the same as all comparable others. They must *****, live, fart, eat, breed, die, sleep, and otherwise carry on while doing all the extraordinary things that allows them to escape identification.

Next question:

In North America where do you think sasquatch does and does not exist?

 

[kitakaze]

You are the one, who above, stated: "Native Americans having bigfoot in their traditions is not a fact at all but an interpretation by those who are seeking beyond objectivity support for the notion that bigfoot is a real species."

You are inferring that bigfooters have been pushing bigfoot on NAs, and that NAs, at no time, have stated that creatures in their own stories, baskets, songs, totems, etc. are bigfoot. That is untrue. They, themselves, identify those references as large bipedal, hairy man-like creatures (please note that no they do not use the term "bigfoot" but why should they? That term was invented in the 1950s). Again, I can't seem to see where all the heartburn is coming from. It's ok for native people to believe in an animal that you don't.

I'm not inferring anything. I'm stating that people, Native American or otherwise are seeking beyond objectivity to support the notion that bigfoot is a real species.

Let's return to simplicity. You believe without doubt these creatures exist.

Next question:

Where do they exist? (Please try to be more specific than the Pacific Northwest.)

 

[Huntster]

Dude, Hairy Man is a chick!....

A "hottie", too..........

(Sorry, RB.........she's just so impressive............)

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I knew you never read Glickman, and I knew that any and all evidence wouldn't change your "mind".

Isn't Glickman the guy that calculated Patty's weight to be 1,957 lbs?

Yeah, that's the guy.

While I don't agree with his weight results, I do think that Patty's weight is much more than many people speculate.

I'd say she weighed between 650 and 1,000 lbs.

The mean would be 825 lbs.

 

[kitakaze]

There are only two choices. Option 1: Either this animal is real and has adapted to a variety of environments (including size/color differences, which in the 15,000 or so years that the land bridge was open and available for evolutionary adaptations to occur. This should not be interpreted to mean I think that adaptation is possible in all environments).

OR

Option 2: There is a widespread physiological niche that bigfoot fills for the human race.

I am currently supporting option 1.

Are you quite sure there are only two choices?

 

[kitakaze]

Right about now where would be a good specific place to find a:

a) brown bear

b) wolverine

c) sasquatch

d) ivory-billed woodpecker

?

 

[Huntster]

....Next question for the Q&A:

What do you think is the most likely cause for the completely widespread nature of the bigfoot phenomenom?

The information media.

Yet again, Glickman addressed this. Fully.

Yet there is still the pattern of report densities. Yet again, Glickman addressed this.

 

[Huntster]

.....That's what you get for assuming anything...just like I don't assume that you really look like Rob Zombie or are truly mad.

No need to assume.

He'll make it apparent.

 

[Huntster]

No heartburn here...it's just that Fudster seems to be trying to say that because Native Americans on Kodiak Island don't have any stories about wild hairy men in their lore and subsequently no Bigfeetsus sightings yet PWI does and does that that is somehow signifigant.

Yeah, it's "signifigant".

You'll never accept it (even though it's being force fed to you), but that's okay.

You don't matter, anyway.

 

[kitakaze]

Kooshdakhaa and Kushtaka are two separate creatures (or people). They sound similar because both have the word "otter" in them. But in Tlingit, they are separate stories with separate stories. What were discussing yesterday was Kushtaka.

My apologies for the bluntness but please prove it. The writer seemed to be Tlinglit by the composition of the entry and I am unconvinced that your claim is true and the spelling of 'Kooshdakhaa' is not alternate of Kushtaka. Being bilingual I'm quite accustomed to alternate spellings that appear phonetic.

 

[kitakaze]

The information media.

Yet again, Glickman addressed this. Fully.

Yet there is still the pattern of report densities. Yet again, Glickman addressed this.

Understood. Tomorrow I will properly read Glickman. In the meantime, do you think bigfoot exists in New York State?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by William Parcher
Isn't Glickman the guy that calculated Patty's weight to be 1,957 lbs?

Yes. He used a formula. Funny how sceptics never seem to read the rest of the report.

They read it.

They just don't cite the rest.

Funny?

Yup.

The joke's on them.........

 

[Huntster]

.....Native Americans having bigfoot in their traditions is not a fact at all but an interpretation by those who are seeking beyond objectivity support for the notion that bigfoot is a real species.....

That's a claim.

Prove it.

Beware, there is ample evidence (even proof?) that your claim is very wrong.

Also, I think you should very soon find Correa having much more to say on this than I.

Lord, have mercy!!

Correa?

 

[Huntster]

LAL...if dude is trying to tell us that Bigfeetsus tips the scales at nearly 2,000lbs ...what good is the rest of the report??

"Gooder" than your "report".