Bbc Article: Why Don't People See The Yeti Anymore?

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Moderator Statement:

 

This topic is locked until further notice.

 

This topic is now reopened. If you're going to argue from the position that Bigfoot cannot possibly exist, you'll be banned from the topic. This may possibly extend into other topics, as well.

 

You have been warned.

Edited November 13, 2015 by See-Te-Cah NC
To reopen topic with Mod Statement

[See-Te-Cah NC]

 

Bigfoot is described as an actual creature by many contemporary Native Americans who have encounters to this day.  That is hardly myth or folklore.

 

What this comes down to is that your stance as a non-believer is no more based on fact than that of a believer, and neither position is as valid as that of someone who has stood face to face with a bigfoot.  Yet you act as is your position has greater moral foundation than that of a believer, when it does not. 

 

 

 

Well, it's a fact that there is not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim. None. That is a fact. If you don't think my position as a non-believer has anything to do with that fact, then you are mistaken. 

 

I believe you mean to say that not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim as of yet.

 

I'd like to point out another fact - Science has misinterpreted physical evidence in the past. Anthropologists may well have evidence of Sasquatch in the form of ancient hominid remains. However, they, in an attempt to keep their consensus viewpoint of human evolution tidy, they've determined that the remains of the creatures found are "human ancestors." After all, I know that they've claimed that the remains of the coelacanth was presented by the scientific community as being extinct some 65 million years ago, and that it had evolved, its bony fins changing into limbs, and the creature developing lungs. Someone forgot to tell the fishermen off of the coast of Madagascar those "facts" because they'd been catching and eating them for years! Ooopsie!

 

With this said, I'd be careful touting scientific fact, especially when you seem to enjoy handling this scientific fact like an 8 year old playing with a  loaded firearm. Your intent isn't with keeping our rules insofar as this being a Bigfoot forum, and that for your viewpoint to be considered you must also be considerate of the viewpoint of those that believe that the creature can, might, or does exist.

 

While you're welcome to your opinion, it's not the standard that our forum members ascribe to, nor is it anymore factual that those you appear to hold a hard line against regarding their claims, as well as the belief they've formed based on these claims. You weren't there, and for you to appoint yourself as qualified to evaluate claims, evidence, and facts is the height of closed-mindedness.

 

Anecdotes are simply stories. Talk about them all you want, they have extremely limited value as scientific evidence. Consistent forensics? Not really. Some of those consistent forensics have been proven to be fabrications. Consistent tracks have fooled some of the "best in the business". Again, these are facts. Since, you know, you want to focus on facts. 

 

For this statement to be accurate, you must also concede that science, as in the example of the coelacanth above, was proven to be wrong, and that those "facts" were the result of some of the "best in the business" not only being fooled, but presenting their incorrect evaluation of "forensic evidence" as fact. If bigfoot proponents and their "best" can be fooled, and therefore wrong, then so can you and those you consider to be experts in the factual evaluation of forensic evidence.

 

If anecdotes are simply stories, what would you call the incorrect analysis, evaluation and presentation of incorrect interpretation of the forensic evidence regarding the coelacanth? A fabrication? It appears that they fabricated, and presented, a story completely lacking in facts, wouldn't you say? You can tout science all you want, but their interpretation of evidence has been wrong before. What's to say that ample forensic evidence won't be found to support the existence of the creature? Just because you find the evidence lacking doesn't mean that it's non-existent, nor does it mean evidence presented already has been interpreted correctly.

 

I don't believe that you have ever laid eyes on a bigfoot.  

 

That's your right. However, I don't believe that he didn't. After all, I wasn't present when he claimed to see what he saw, and neither were you.

 

Personally, I'm betting that he did see what he saw. There are no experts regarding the phenomenon. Admittedly, it's a huge climb to prove the existence of the creature. However, that's not to say that it won't happen, or that it doesn't exist. Your opinion, based on your facts, is beginning to wax old. Anyone can claim to have facts while waiting for others to prove them wrong. What I wonder is if you can respect the opinions and claims of others without wielding the air of superiority based on science.

 

Put your claim out as it is above, but with "coelacanth" in the place of "bigfoot" and read it to yourself. Maybe you'll see what I mean. I doubt it, but just maybe you will.

[dmaker]

" If you're going to argue from the position that Bigfoot cannot possibly exist, you'll be banned from the topic. "    

 

But I don't, and never have. I believe that bigfoot does not exist, not that it cannot possibly exist. No one has been able to bring evidence to establish existence as a fact or to even give reasonable cause to think that bigfoot exists. Therefore I believe bigfoot does not now, or ever at any point the past, exist in North America. I do not believe evidence will ever be forthcoming to establish the existence of bigfoot as a fact. 

 

Bigfoot is not an overlooked species of fish. Bigfoot is a 9ft ape that roams around peoples backyards of semi-rural Chicago. It bangs on trailers and wanders around farms to twist branches.  This is no fish. The coelacanth comparison is very weak. How many amateur research organizations were donning scuba gear and scouring the ocean for the coelacanth? How many amateur research orgs exist today for the sole purpose of finding bigfoot? In the U.S alone, I would wager at least 65.  How you can compare this to the coelacanth is beyond me. 

 

I'm not claiming to know what someone saw. I believe that many people here that claim sightings did not see anything at all.  Dishonesty is rampant within this subject and I'm sure this forum is no different. Why would it be? 

 

If a belief in bigfoot is required to participate in threads here, then you might as well ban me now. I simply cannot with a straight face, and maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, say that I can accept the premise that bigfoot just might be real. Sorry, can't do it.  

Edited November 14, 2015 by dmaker

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Well, so be it, then. If you choose to take one for the team based on a complete misrepresentation of what I said, then there's little I can, or will, do to prevent your departure.

 

If science can't even present a logical argument based on fossilized remains of an extant fish species, then perhaps your opinion is without merit. Maybe they made up their findings? You've completely glossed over the fact that the imperial science you continually tout was in great error. Why is that?

 

Nobody's asking you to believe in Bigfoot. However, I'm asking that you, and others that share your belief, refrain from presenting your "facts" in such a manner as to disrupt the forum and its participants.

[dmaker]

I never denied the error made with the coelacanth, I am saying it is a ridiculous comparison. A fish was found when no one was even actively looking for it. Yet, hundreds of people bumbling around in the woods and picnic areas of North America cannot find any reasonable trace of a breeding population of 9 ft apes.  

 

You still think the two situations are somehow comparable?

 

How should one present "facts" then around here?  There are plenty of proponents who present non-factual "facts" on a regular basis. This often leads to off topic battles with people like me. Are they allowed to continue to present their false bigfoot "facts" with impunity? Or is it only facts that are generally frowned upon here that must be approached tenderly?  Must everything I say be prefaced with " in my opinion"? Does the same apply to proponents when they are clearly presenting an opinion and not a "fact"?

Edited November 14, 2015 by dmaker

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Perhaps they weren't looking for the ceolacanth because they "knew" that they were right... empirically.

 

While the two may not be comparable, the science aspect can certainly be compared. Science was wrong in that instance regardless of whether you feel it was a correct comparison. It can be wrong in this instance, too, although science isn't claiming the creature can't be real. The denialists are using the lack of scientifically-accepted evidence to show "proof" that the creature can't (or doesn't) exist, while science simply refuses to recognize the creature's existence until proper proof is brought forward to substantiate it. It seems that science is more open minded than you appear to be.

 

Present your evidence according to our rules and guidelines. Respect the presence of those with a differing opinion without continually degrading their opinions. Is it really that hard?

 

As you know, I myself am skeptical of most of the evidence presented regarding the phenomenon. However, I can simply choose to overlook what I don't believe without pounding my point of view relentlessly over and over again.

[Night Walker]

For one they see it as both spiritual and flesh and blood. 

 

 

That Yetis/Bigfoot/Yowies/whatever have a spiritual component at all is a good indication that we may not be dealing with a regular flesh-and-blood creature here... Perhaps it would be good to examine and compare the pre-existing folklore of newly "discovered" species with the folklore of cryptids still awaiting "discovery" to see if any patterns/similarities/differences emerge - anyone interested? Can we do it in this thread or do we need to create a new one?

 

Is the International Hairy Man of Mystery (IHMM) a regular animal attributed with powers/spirituality via human imagination or is it a mythical/legendary figure attributed with a flesh-and-blood reality via the human imagination/action? Either way - it should be acknowledged that human imagination plays a prominent role in the perpetuation of many IHMM accounts...

 

If imagination can significantly influences our experience of life then perhaps Bigfoot is not really a creature at all but a shared type of human experience - real, intense, spiritual in nature...

 

If spirituality plays an important role in IHMM lore then we should examine it, why it is growing in some areas, and why it is declining in others...

[JDL]

They're as much spiritual constructs as coyotes.

[norseman]

For one they see it as both spiritual and flesh and blood.

 

That Yetis/Bigfoot/Yowies/whatever have a spiritual component at all is a good indication that we may not be dealing with a regular flesh-and-blood creature here... Perhaps it would be good to examine and compare the pre-existing folklore of newly "discovered" species with the folklore of cryptids still awaiting "discovery" to see if any patterns/similarities/differences emerge - anyone interested? Can we do it in this thread or do we need to create a new one?

 

Is the International Hairy Man of Mystery (IHMM) a regular animal attributed with powers/spirituality via human imagination or is it a mythical/legendary figure attributed with a flesh-and-blood reality via the human imagination/action? Either way - it should be acknowledged that human imagination plays a prominent role in the perpetuation of many IHMM accounts...

 

If imagination can significantly influences our experience of life then perhaps Bigfoot is not really a creature at all but a shared type of human experience - real, intense, spiritual in nature...

 

If spirituality plays an important role in IHMM lore then we should examine it, why it is growing in some areas, and why it is declining in others...

This would be a good place to start....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebu_gogo

[JDL]

If a hominid exists/existed and humans have encountered it in the present or in the past, then there will be folklore about it.

 

Therefore folklore cannot be dismissed as simple imagination.

 

The Gorilla was folklore.  The Bili Ape was folklore.  The Si-Teh-Cah were folklore, yet three of their mummified remains were on display in Virginia City, Nevada for over two decades before BLM confiscated them.  Along with Homo Florensis we also have Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis in the fossil record, and I'm sure that there are others.  Who knows what specimens exist in the bowels of the Smithsonian, other museums, and universities that were collected in the 1800's, yet never properly classified, and never subjected to modern forensic analysis.

[Night Walker]

If Yetis/Bigfoot/Yowies are as much spiritual constructs as coyotes then why aren’t people’s lives turned on their heads by sighting a coyote as they are when encountering Yeti/Bigfoot/Yowie?  Some folk may attribute coyotes with mystical features (eg as totems or ancestor spirits) yet the presence of those same coyotes can be objectively documented whereas the IHMM cannot – it remains forever “real†but beyond reach. Elusive or illusive?

_____

 

https://en.m.wikiped...g/wiki/Ebu_gogo

 

It is interesting to note that the Ebu gogo has not been attributed with mystical powers like Yeti/Bigfoot/Yowie…

_____

 

If a hominid exists/existed and humans have encountered it in the present or in the past, then there will be folklore about it.

 

Therefore folklore cannot be dismissed as simple imagination.

 

The Gorilla was folklore.  The Bili Ape was folklore.  The Si-Teh-Cah were folklore, yet three of their mummified remains were on display in Virginia City, Nevada for over two decades before BLM confiscated them.  Along with Homo Florensis we also have Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis in the fossil record, and I'm sure that there are others.  Who knows what specimens exist in the bowels of the Smithsonian, other museums, and universities that were collected in the 1800's, yet never properly classified, and never subjected to modern forensic analysis.

 

Stories based on actual historical events makes up only a small subset of the broader folklore and they too are often imaginatively embellished to enhance the impact of the tale. A far greater proportion of cultural folktales are completely fictional/mythical/legendary yet based in a real setting…

 

The Bili ape, only recently “discoveredâ€, is demonstrably real. Notice how its pre-existing folklore is not mythical in nature – no mind-speak, teleportation, cloaking, dimension-hopping, etc…

 

Conspiracy theories about giant remains and Smithsonian skulduggery are examples of modern folklore in action - fictions supporting other fictions yet if you believe them as fact they make the conspiracy experience very “realâ€. Imagination (and culture) has a significant influence over how we experience “realityâ€â€¦

 

It is not about dismissing folklore – it is about placing it within its appropriate context and attempting to understand it beyond the strictly literal…

 

Are there any Native American Bigfoot-researchers here? I, for one, would welcome your input on these matters…

[Incorrigible1]

What reason would the Smithsonian have to continue a purported coverup at this stage in the game?

 

A minor researcher smuggling out a giganto fossil to present to Dr. Meldrum will have eternal fame.

 

I ain't buying the coverup soooo necessary for the dream to continue.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Incorrigible1

[Night Walker]

But many people DO buy into the Smithsonian conspiracy and it is very real to them. It is because of that perceived reality that possible connections to other elements of Western folklore (eg giants/Nephilim/Bigfoot - depending one one's cultural influences) are perceived to exist thereby strengthening the "reality" of both...

 

Things don't have to be objectively real for people to subjectively perceive and experience them as such...

Edited November 15, 2015 by Night Walker

[Incorrigible1]

Many believe the "gubmint" is directing their thoughts with microwaves. Doesn't make things true.

[JDL]

If Yetis/Bigfoot/Yowies are as much spiritual constructs as coyotes then why aren’t people’s lives turned on their heads by sighting a coyote as they are when encountering Yeti/Bigfoot/Yowie?  Some folk may attribute coyotes with mystical features (eg as totems or ancestor spirits) yet the presence of those same coyotes can be objectively documented whereas the IHMM cannot – it remains forever “real†but beyond reach. Elusive or illusive?

_____

 

https://en.m.wikiped...g/wiki/Ebu_gogo

 

It is interesting to note that the Ebu gogo has not been attributed with mystical powers like Yeti/Bigfoot/Yowie…

_____

 

If a hominid exists/existed and humans have encountered it in the present or in the past, then there will be folklore about it.

 

Therefore folklore cannot be dismissed as simple imagination.

 

The Gorilla was folklore.  The Bili Ape was folklore.  The Si-Teh-Cah were folklore, yet three of their mummified remains were on display in Virginia City, Nevada for over two decades before BLM confiscated them.  Along with Homo Florensis we also have Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis in the fossil record, and I'm sure that there are others.  Who knows what specimens exist in the bowels of the Smithsonian, other museums, and universities that were collected in the 1800's, yet never properly classified, and never subjected to modern forensic analysis.

 

Stories based on actual historical events makes up only a small subset of the broader folklore and they too are often imaginatively embellished to enhance the impact of the tale. A far greater proportion of cultural folktales are completely fictional/mythical/legendary yet based in a real setting…

 

The Bili ape, only recently “discoveredâ€, is demonstrably real. Notice how its pre-existing folklore is not mythical in nature – no mind-speak, teleportation, cloaking, dimension-hopping, etc…

 

Conspiracy theories about giant remains and Smithsonian skulduggery are examples of modern folklore in action - fictions supporting other fictions yet if you believe them as fact they make the conspiracy experience very “realâ€. Imagination (and culture) has a significant influence over how we experience “realityâ€â€¦

 

It is not about dismissing folklore – it is about placing it within its appropriate context and attempting to understand it beyond the strictly literal…

 

Are there any Native American Bigfoot-researchers here? I, for one, would welcome your input on these matters…

 

Night Walker, there are several subjective statements in your argument.  My point about coyotes is that some Native American cultures attributed spiritual aspects to what are clearly physical beings.

 

Folklore contains a mix of factual basis and myth.  Point is that just because something exists in folklore it cannot be dismissed out of hand.

 

You and I agree that mind-speak, teleportation, cloaking and dimension hopping are ridiculous attributions.  They are no more than physical beings just like us, but with highly developed skills.  People trained in Special Ops, though, can replicate the bulk of bigfoots' demonstrated ability to evade.

 

You should look into the Powell Doctrine established in 1879.  Powell himself actively advocates suppression of certain lines of research.  I recommend purchasing and reading the following book to bring yourself up to speed. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ancient-Giants-Ruled-America/dp/1591431719  It is well documented and may well change your perception.

 

Placing folklore in its "proper context" very much sounds like a subjective process to me.  Who decides what is relegated to simple myth and who attributes more to a particular aspect?  Your way of thinking could well make you a successor to Powell.

 

 

What reason would the Smithsonian have to continue a purported coverup at this stage in the game?

 

A minor researcher smuggling out a giganto fossil to present to Dr. Meldrum will have eternal fame.

 

I ain't buying the coverup soooo necessary for the dream to continue.

 

The only reason I could think of would be to avoid scandal.  They are loosening up, though, with new finds.  Powell steadfastly refused to acknowledge any of the accumulating evidence pointing toward pre-Columbian contact by what he referred to as "tribes of antiquity".  Today, the Smithsonian has acknowledged the emergence of Salutrean artifacts over the past few decades and other evidence indicating Old World communication with the Americas.

 

I think cover-up is too strong a statement.  I do think that the government is eager to avoid any bigfoot related headaches.