Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest Transformer]

Speaking of quaint native legends...

You know, I had always heard that tribes from both sides of the continent currently have eerily similar accounts of Sasquatch encounters, habits and descriptions, or had them in their oral tradtion for generations. O.K., I thought, they read newspapers too. Not too compelling. Then, on reading further, I realized there are multiple accounts of these distant tribal populations giving these accounts to Europeans at or around the time of their first contact with whites. Now, you tell me, what explains that, aside from the obvious? Archetypical myths just don't come with that level of detail.

I cannot believe that this myth of a continent wide consensus of sasquatch by the native indian tribes in Canada is still being trotted out by supposedly informed people.

Not one hint of any sasquatch-like creature in the tens of thousand of pages of records of all the Hudson's Bay Proctors. Those records go back to the first explorations of the huge expanse of the continent that drained into the Hudson Bay starting in the 1670s. There is also not one hint of the sasquatch by the first Europeans to explore for the North West Passage crossing huge expanses of wilderness and living with various tribes for years. The first European to cross the continent (Alexander Mackenzie 1764-1820)did not mention any such creature although he lived with the naitve indians and recounted their legends and their battles in his voluminous writings. There are no wood carvings, mosaics, hide painting, horn etching or legends that come even close to what is considered the modern day sasquatch.

Lots of legends of other types of creatures though with all the artifiacts mentioned before as proof of their being part of the culture of the various or specific tribes. My husband always likes to bring up the stories the Ojibway have about their women being kidnapped by beavers and beaver-men being the product of that mating.

[dmaker]

Clearly the Hudson Bay Proctors were not acquainted with the evidence

[dmaker]

Quiet in here today. DWA and WSA take a day off?

Edited February 9, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

It kind of reminds me of AA theorists interpetating supernatural beings in mythology as aliens.

Bigfooter's equivalent to Giorgio Tsoukalos: "When you read about the Bukwas, you will see that he is a ghost who lives in invisible house in the forest attracting spirits of those who have drowned. This to me sounds like a misinterpretation of a large bidpedal primate!"

[Guest LarryP]

Yes, but you did ask about shared legends and myth. UFOs, aliens, ghosts..those don't matter, even though they occur with the same, or even higher rate,as Bigfoot? And seem to be pretty global and ancient. Don't we have cave drawings of UFOs and aliens, or at least that we are calling that? Really? There are no parallels here?

There are definitely some parallels there.

[norseman]

I cannot believe that this myth of a continent wide consensus of sasquatch by the native indian tribes in Canada is still being trotted out by supposedly informed people.

Not one hint of any sasquatch-like creature in the tens of thousand of pages of records of all the Hudson's Bay Proctors. Those records go back to the first explorations of the huge expanse of the continent that drained into the Hudson Bay starting in the 1670s. There is also not one hint of the sasquatch by the first Europeans to explore for the North West Passage crossing huge expanses of wilderness and living with various tribes for years. The first European to cross the continent (Alexander Mackenzie 1764-1820)did not mention any such creature although he lived with the naitve indians and recounted their legends and their battles in his voluminous writings. There are no wood carvings, mosaics, hide painting, horn etching or legends that come even close to what is considered the modern day sasquatch.

Lots of legends of other types of creatures though with all the artifiacts mentioned before as proof of their being part of the culture of the various or specific tribes. My husband always likes to bring up the stories the Ojibway have about their women being kidnapped by beavers and beaver-men being the product of that mating.

I'm breaking my promise here...........sorry.

But what your saying is not true.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/davidthompson.htm

It's evident that Thompson was unsure of what he saw and that he had doubts it was a bear track. And he worked for the Hudson Bay company as well as the Northwest company.

Not trying to use this to convince anyone.

[Guest LarryP]

I cannot believe that this myth of a continent wide consensus of sasquatch by the native indian tribes in Canada is still being trotted out by supposedly informed people.

Not one hint of any sasquatch-like creature in the tens of thousand of pages of records of all the Hudson's Bay Proctors. Those records go back to the first explorations of the huge expanse of the continent that drained into the Hudson Bay starting in the 1670s. There is also not one hint of the sasquatch by the first Europeans to explore for the North West Passage crossing huge expanses of wilderness and living with various tribes for years. The first European to cross the continent (Alexander Mackenzie 1764-1820)did not mention any such creature although he lived with the naitve indians and recounted their legends and their battles in his voluminous writings. There are no wood carvings, mosaics, hide painting, horn etching or legends that come even close to what is considered the modern day sasquatch.

Lots of legends of other types of creatures though with all the artifiacts mentioned before as proof of their being part of the culture of the various or specific tribes. My husband always likes to bring up the stories the Ojibway have about their women being kidnapped by beavers and beaver-men being the product of that mating.

http://www.sunstar-s...igfootnames.htm

Below are some of the names that Native Americans had for Bigfoot

Bukwas - Kwakwaka'wakw Indian

Tsonaqua - Kwakwaka'wakw Indian

Tornit - Inuit Indian

Nun Yunu Wi - Cherokee Indian

Kecleh-kudleh - Cherokee Indian

Gougou - Micmac Indian

Kokotshe - Tete-de-Boule Indian

Witiko - Tete-de-Boule Indian

Atshen - Tete-de-Boule Indian

Misinghalikun - Lenni Lenape Indian

Wsinkhoalican - Lenni Lenape Indian

Nu'numic - Owens Valley Paiute Indian

Tse'nahaha - Mono Lake Paiute Indian

Slalakums - Upper Stalo Indian

Iktomi - Plains Indian

Kashehotapalo - Choctaw Indian

Nalusa Falaya - Choctaw Indian

Windago - Athabascan Indian

Wetiko - Cree Indian

Sasquatch - Salish Indian

Choanito - Wenatchee Indian

Tsiatko - Puyallup / Nisqually Indian

Steta'l - Puyallup / Nisqually Indian

Atahsaia - Zuni Indian

Madukarahat - Karok Indian

Chiye tanka - Lakota Sioux Indian

Chiha tanka - Dakota Sioux Indian

Kushtaka - Tlingit Indian

A hoo la hul - Yup'ik Indian

Esti Capcaki - Seminole Indian

Gogit - Haida Indian

Hecaitomixw - Quinault Indian

Skukum - Quinault Indian

Tsadjatko - Quinault Indian

Mesingw - Leni Lenape Indian

Na'in - Gwich'in Indian

Ye'iitsoh - Navajo Indian

Nantiinaq - Kenai Peninsula Indian

Urayuli - SW Alaskan Eskimo

Gilyuk - Nelchina Plateau Indian

So'yoko - Hopi Indian

Miitiipi - Kawaiisu Indian

Tso apittse - Shoshone Indian

Boqs - Bella Coola Indian

Loo poo oi'yes - Miwuk Indian

Yi'dy'tay - Nehalem / Tillamook Indian

Sasahevas - Halkomelem Indian

Sc'wen'ey'ti - Spokane Indian

Seatco - Yakama / Klickitat / Puyallup Indian

Ste ye mah - Yakama Indian

Seat ka - Yakama Indian

Skookum - Chinook Indian

See'atco - Salish Indian

Xi'lgo -Nehalem / Tillamook Indian

Rugaru - Ojibway Indian

Skanicum - Colville Indian

Seeahtkch - Clallam Indian

Omah - Yurok Indian

El-lsh-kas - Makah Indian

Saskets - Salishan / Sahaptin Indian

Manabai'wok - Menomini Indian

Yayaya-ash - Klamath Indian

Matlose - Nootka Indian

Iariyin - Hare Indian

Goo tee khi - Chilkat Indian

Kala'litabiqw - Skagit Indian

Yahyahaas - Modoc Indian

Toylona - Taos Indian

Get'qun - Lake Lliamna Indian

Nant'ina - Dema'ina Indian

Neginla eh - Alutiiq / Yukon Indian

Oh Mah - Hoopa Indian

Sne nah - Okanogan Indian

Qah lin me - Yakama / Klickitat Indian

Ge no'sgwa - Seneca Indian

Ge no sqwa - Iroquois / Seneca Indian

Ot ne yar heh - Iroquois Indian

Tah tah kle' ah - Yakama / Shasta Indian

At'at'ahila - Chinookan Indian

Qui yihahs - Yakama / Klickitat Indian

Edited February 9, 2013 by LarryP

[Guest]

I'm breaking my promise here...........sorry.

But what your saying is not true.

http://www.bigfooten...vidthompson.htm

It's evident that Thompson was unsure of what he saw and that he had doubts it was a bear track. And he worked for the Hudson Bay company as well as the Northwest company.

Not trying to use this to convince anyone.

Not so sure. In his journal, he says the track "very much resemble a large Bear's Track." Four decades later: "I held it to be the track of a large old grizzly bear..." He is allowing that others in his party did not agree with him.

I'm always intrigued by the reference to "a young mammouth." Wonder what the term meant to folks in that place and time.

Certainly, he makes no mention of bipedal tracks.

Edited February 9, 2013 by jerrywayne

[norseman]

Not so sure. In his journal, he says the track "very much resemble a large Bear's Track." Four decades later: "I held it to be the track of a large old grizzly bear..." He is allowing that others in his party did not agree with him.

I'm always intrigued by the reference to "a young mammouth." Wonder what the term meant to folks in that place and time.

Certainly, he makes no mention of bipedal tracks.

But he also stated "yet the shortness of the nails, the ball of the foot, and it's great size was not that of a Bear, otherwise that of a very large old Bear, his claws worn away, the Indians would not allow".

If you increase the ball of the foot, and take away claws, and make the track larger than a bear? What do you have? I'm assuming they would be looking at a rear track, because the fore foot isn't even in the same realm.

The top track above is actually the rear foot.

Again, all I'm saying is that an early explorer of the N. American continent did have a moment where he was scratching his head, observing something that perplexed him a bit. With as many grizzly bear tracks that he did observe in his travels he evidently only wrote down the one that struck him as odd and not consistent with what else he had observed, otherwise he wouldn't have written this account down either. It wasn't mundane but rather something notable.

To be fair the hind foot on a Grizzly has much smaller claws than the fore foot, and it's possible that they just didn't register in the snow well. But also to be fair, if the animal was walking in the snow they would have observed the fore foot track as well.......which would have been game over. But there is no mention of this. Also, it doesn't matter how big a Grizzly gets the over all shape of the foot stays the same and wouldn't account for a much larger ball of the foot.

The report is compelling, and it's also compelling that his Indian guides where telling him "Yah........we know what a Griz track looks like boss......this ain't it". Equally compelling is that I would assume that in 1811, Ray Wallace's great grandfather was still in Scotland or where ever..

[norseman]

I also want to add that there is indeed archaeological evidence that native Americans did indeed believe in these creatures.

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Mayak%20Datat%20Hairy%20Man%20Pictographs-1.pdf

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/biography-of-kathy-moskowitz-strain.html

[Guest]

[Edited to say something better.]

WSA and I will have shown ourselves to be far superior scientists, at least when it comes to this topic, and with no credentials. You aren't engaging your mind on this.

DWA,

I've read your posts through the years and your basic argument can be summed up by this recent statement: "Not really concerned about anything but the reports and what they say."

Since you are stating that you possess a "far superior" scientific approach to the data compared to skeptics, I would like to ask you some questions.

Considering your statement about reports. Notice, you make no brief for veracity. Basically, your read reports and believe "what they say." Of course, with that skewed methodology, you get to where you want to be. But, do you think this is a sound scientific approach?

I know you make great hay of the consistency of the sighting reports; this is probably the closest you come to offering a real argument. But, do you ever think this may not be enough of a reason to accept reports, generally, without doubt? Cannot consistency work against your thesis. For instance, most reports I have read state the beast in question is 7ft. tall, or taller. Now, how do eyewitnesses come up with this consistent factor?

Before you answer "well, Bigfoot is 7 ft. tall," ask yourself -- how would folks always seem to know the beast in question is at least 7ft. tall? Many sightings are fleeting. Many sightings are at night or sudden and surprising, or at some distance or in open areas.

How is it that eyewitnesses more often than not say they are seeing a bipedal animal at least 7 ft. tall? No measuring tape. Nothing to compare it with in most cases. Eyewitnesses never overestimate, or underestimate size? Always correct: 7 ft tall hairy humans or bipedal apes.

Does the glimmer of received lore ever enter into your thinking. Could not the 7 ft. height consistency reflect what people think they know about Bigfoot as well, or better, than what they actually saw, or thought they saw? Is this a possibility to consider, if you are inclined toward objectivity?

Also, how well are the sighting reports you read vetted, across the board. Are all, or most, eyewitness reports seriously scrutinized? Are the sighting reports you read investigated thoroughly and validated objectively? How deep are the investigations? Are most sightings validated or given credence by investigators who are pro-Bigfoot and therefore biased to an extent?

Since many Bigfoot websites seem to have a "report a Bigfoot sighting" button, such an easy avenue for abuse is problematical, or do you disagree?

You seem to think there are even more sightings than reported. Do you ever think that this might be a problem? After all, we already have reports coming in that are so numerous, and in places well populated by us, the Other North American Ape, that it strains reasonableness that there is no definitive evidence for such an animal. It basically boils down to this -- no Bigfoot, thousands of Bigfoot sightings.

Do you have any criteria for "real" Bigfoot eyewitness accounts? If accounts describe the beast in question consistently, or, that is, they describe it in accordance to Bigfoot lore (and you cannot deny Bigfoot lore), is that enough for you? Or, do you ever wonder if the story, the eyewitness account, is plausible on its surface? For instance, there are recorded sightings posted at pro-Bigfoot web pages, made not forty five minutes, north and south, of where I am sitting right now. I am sitting almost dead center in the city limits of Dallas, Texas. Would it be a problem for you to think that giant apes, or immense feral humans, so freely move around, seen but never ascertained, in such an area? Is this a problem with eyewitness reports?

Also, I think you owe persons who claim to have seen ghosts an apology. Your statement: "Ghosts are the psychological experiences of the people who see them." This is a form of ridicule. Certainly, most folks who say they see ghosts do not buy into your explanation that cheapens their experience. Ghosts are real, they are the projections of the afterlife, not the "psychological" projections of the mind. So apologize. What are you, anyway --- a ghost scoftic?

Edited February 10, 2013 by jerrywayne

[Guest]

But he also stated "yet the shortness of the nails, the ball of the foot, and it's great size was not that of a Bear, otherwise that of a very large old Bear, his claws worn away, the Indians would not allow".

If you increase the ball of the foot, and take away claws, and make the track larger than a bear? What do you have? I'm assuming they would be looking at a rear track, because the fore foot isn't even in the same realm.

The top track above is actually the rear foot.

Again, all I'm saying is that an early explorer of the N. American continent did have a moment where he was scratching his head, observing something that perplexed him a bit. With as many grizzly bear tracks that he did observe in his travels he evidently only wrote down the one that struck him as odd and not consistent with what else he had observed, otherwise he wouldn't have written this account down either. It wasn't mundane but rather something notable.

To be fair the hind foot on a Grizzly has much smaller claws than the fore foot, and it's possible that they just didn't register in the snow well. But also to be fair, if the animal was walking in the snow they would have observed the fore foot track as well.......which would have been game over. But there is no mention of this. Also, it doesn't matter how big a Grizzly gets the over all shape of the foot stays the same and wouldn't account for a much larger ball of the foot.

The report is compelling, and it's also compelling that his Indian guides where telling him "Yah........we know what a Griz track looks like boss......this ain't it". Equally compelling is that I would assume that in 1811, Ray Wallace's great grandfather was still in Scotland or where ever..

Maybe Ray Wallace's great grandfather made tracks near Loch Ness.

I'm reading the text a little different than you are. He is saying the Indians wouldn't allow a bear interpretation, the interpretation he has made.

We may be looking at track overlap, front paw and back paw. Don't know if bear walking, or running, in deep snow would be more or less inclined to step overlap. You would know better than I.

Nothing in the account assumes knowledge of Giant Humans (or monster ape-men). Unless, that is, we know what "young mammouth" is referring to. Certainly, First Nation people aren't thinking "woolly mammoth," are they? Perhaps, this is a veiled reference to Giant Indians, but more likely, to some giant animal unrelated to what we think today of as sasquatch.

Great picture, btw.

Edited February 10, 2013 by jerrywayne

[norseman]

Maybe Ray Wallace's great grandfather made tracks near Loch Ness.

I'm reading the text a little different than you are. He is saying the Indians wouldn't allow a bear interpretation, the interpretation he has made.

Not so much the text, as to the fact that he singled out that experience and wrote it down. I think your right, I think he was thinking through all the plausible explanations. But if he believed 100 percent it was a bear track I don't think we would know of it now, it would have been forgotten.

We may be looking at track overlap, front paw and back paw. Don't know if bear walking, or running, in deep snow would be more or less inclined to step overlap. You would know better than I.

That's what a overlap looks like for a bear. Maybe? With native American trackers there? Not likely.

Nothing in the account assumes knowledge of Giant Humans (or monster ape-men). Unless, that is, we know what "young mammouth" is referring to. Certainly, First Nation people aren't thinking "woolly mammoth," are they? Perhaps, this is a veiled reference to Giant Indians, but more likely, to some giant animal unrelated to what we think today of as sasquatch.

I disagree, while it's certainly plausible that Mr. Thompson had no idea what the legends said? If you take a Grizzly bear hind foot track, make it bigger, take away the claws, and broaden the heel? Well...........you have a Sasquatch track. That's what the man IS describing.

I think Mr. Thompson was conflicted about what he saw, the Indian guides were insisting it wasn't a Bear, and Mr. Thompson felt that it was important enough to write the report down.

Whether it was a Squatch or not is irrelevant, the point I'm trying to make is that early explorers did record some things they deemed "strange" concerning the subject.

Here is another one:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/spokanes.htm

Transformer is completely wrong with the hypothesis that nothing was observed or recorded by early Europeans about the subject. As if it was somehow a invention of the last century. It's also completely wrong to think that the Native Americans themselves didn't draw or carve or record their myths of the creature other than by oral tradition.

Interestingly enough I just posted a thread about "straw bears" in Europe. It would seem that the Europeans THEMSELVES had their own myths and legends about a similar creature. Better known as wildemann or woodwose, whatever.

[Guest]

norseman,

I just found this and I think it illuminates the issue greatly; apparently, "mammouth" does mean mammoth. I was surprised.

http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2860

[HOLDMYBEER]

Maybe those of you with familiarity with bear tracks can illuminate me. Would not an overtrack occur only occasionally in a trackway and not with each track?