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

[Guest]

You can discount subspecies, but how about entirely new species? The sneezing monkey of Myanmar?

How about a more relevent comparsion? Like a new large animal in North America?

[Guest njjohn]

Well larger are rare, I think the latest was 1957. The wood bison was discovered in Alberta Canada after thought to be extinct since the ice age. I know this doesn't prove anything other than a large species that isn't known for it's ability to avoid detection, avoided detection for along time.

[Guest]

Well larger are rare, I think the latest was 1957. The wood bison was discovered in Alberta Canada after thought to be extinct since the ice age.

Did you get this off of wikipedia? I read that in 1900 there were less than 300 individuals due to hunting. Let me repeat, hunting, they were being hunted. People knew about them.

[Guest LarryP]

Probably superfical.

You clearly stated upthread that "they are names for ghosts, giants, cannibals etc that bigfooters have later interpeted as bigfoot".

There's nothing "superficial" about the fact that Indian Tribes all over North America from the Pacific Northwest to the Southeastern US have in many cases identical names in their indigenous languages that describe the same creature now known as Bigfoot.

[norseman]

What are the similarities besides them both being hairy?

And while you're at it what are the similarities between owl woman and bigfoot?

They are both large, hairy and bipedal, the Indians flat rejected they were animals, while I guess whites were/are more along the line of thought they are apes.

Bud, your going to have to enlighten me on owl woman.

[Guest]

You clearly stated upthread that "they are names for ghosts, giants, cannibals etc that bigfooters have later interpeted as bigfoot".

There's nothing "superficial" about the fact that Indian Tribes all over North America from the Pacific Northwest to the Southeastern US have in many cases identical names in their indigenous languages that describe the same creature now known as Bigfoot.

How do you know that these name describe "same creature now known as Bigfoot". Because a bigfoot website says so?

They are both large, hairy and bipedal, the Indians flat rejected they were animals, while I guess whites were/are more along the line of thought they are apes.

Those are pretty generic attributes, plus they don't all have uniform characteristics. The Bukwas doesn't seem to be particularly large and the stone giants are described as having hard skin that protects from spears.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9D0z42QgrxkC&pg=PA98&dq=stone+giants+iroquois+indian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=owQYUf8OioHQAe-YgNAI&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stone%20giants%20iroquois%20indian&f=false

[Guest Crowlogic]

Let's not loose sight that Bigfoot is big, insects which make up the overwhelming number of new found species are small. Fish do not inhabit our life zone. Bigfoot does. I invite anyone to actually sit down and reason out the logistics of what such a creature as Bigfoot needs to do in order to survive and multiply. All without being truly seen and all without having left a single verifiable carcass, and or other solid material proof that can't be faked or misidentified. Footprints are the one and only thing that they leave and they have been faked time and time again. At some point the circumstantial evidence breaks down over the pressure of time going by.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Crowlogic

[Guest LarryP]

How do you know that these name describe "same creature now known as Bigfoot". Because a bigfoot website says so?

No, because Native Americans have said so.

[norseman]

Please re-read my post. I never said that nothing was observed or recorded by early Europeans about the subject. I was pointing out that a very vast network of Hudson's Bay Proctors who lived and worked amongst and married into the various tribes within a huge expanse of Canada made no reference to them in daily records and writings goiing back to the 1670s.

The Thompson writings are interesting but have no bearing on what I originally posted as I was specifically refering to the people in the lands that drained into the Hudson's Bay and the specific individuals that were looking for a North-West Passage and that is certainly not in the area that Thompson was exploring. Again, if you actually read my post you might actually see that I was pointing out the fact that the present day sasquatch myth is NOT shared by the majority of Naitve Indian tribes in Canada and does not go from coast to coast. That was the specific point I was addressing if you will note the quote in my original post.

The Pacific Northwest does have a bit of history going back to wildmen that might be construed as the modern sasquatch.

With respect To Ms. Strain, her interpretations of those rock carvings are definitely in the minority.

First off, I think your splitting hairs here. David Thompson worked for the Hudson bay company and indeed explored areas around Hudson bay. He mapped a route to Lake Athabasca which drains into Great Slave Lake which is certainly moving towards interest in a over land north west passage route to the Bering sea.

So he didn't just explore and map the Columbia river drainage in the Pacific NW. So I'm not sure why your trying to exclude him in your debate.

And as far as Ms. Strain's work, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But I really find this angle of debate mind boggling. The Cree Indians that span Canada from Alberta to Newfoundland, call Bigfoot "Nabagaboo". So I'm not sure how any one can say that myths of Bigfoot concerning Native Americans doesn't run from coast to coast in Canada.

Those are pretty generic attributes, plus they don't all have uniform characteristics. The Bukwas doesn't seem to be particularly large and the stone giants are described as having hard skin that protects from spears.

http://books.google.... indian&f=false

I guess I'm a simpleton, because if a Indian tells me there is a large hairy bipedal creature running around his neck of the woods, and European settlers are seeing a large ape running around on two legs, I guess I see a correlation there.

As far as stone giants? I really don't have an opinion. The Kootenai believed there were elf like creatures in the forest as well around here, I have no opinion about that either.

I saw some big tracks that I cannot explain in deep snow..........I guess if I ever observe elf tracks in the snow, I may scratch my head and say "I'll be damned".

[Guest]

No, because Native Americans have said so.

Correction, a select few modern Native Americans exposed to the Bigfoot culture.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[norseman]

Correction, a select few modern Native Americans exposed to the Bigfoot culture.

So what your saying is, is that Native American myths about Bigfoot are a product of the more modern Anglo Saxon Bigfoot culture?

[Guest]

So what your saying is, is that Native American myths about Bigfoot are a product of the more modern Anglo Saxon Bigfoot culture?

Not the stories of the Bukwas and Wendigo, but probably the modern interpetation of these as sasquatch.

[norseman]

Not the stories of the Bukwas and Wendigo, but probably the modern interpetation of these as sasquatch.

So you see no correlation between Bukwas and the modern term Sasquatch (not the Indian version)?

[Guest]

So you see no correlation between Bukwas and the modern term Sasquatch (not the Indian version)?

Superficial correlations.

[norseman]

Superficial correlations.

Such as?