So Called "myth"

[Guest]

If sasquatch is just a 'myth' then it's a pretty boring and mundane one. They don't seem to do much more than just look at you and then walk off never to be seen again.

Yes there are many encounters like that, but what if the whole point of the mythology is to be one of those lucky few who catch that glimpse? Sasquatch (and similar mythologies from all over the world) don't have to conform to the same "terrifying monster" meme. Think of seeing the sasquatch as a sign from the gods or the ancestors or whatever that you have entered a pivotal point in your life or that you discovered sacred ground, kind of like the burning bush in the book of Exodus. The sasquatch doesn't have to be or do anything other than allow you to glimpse it, and that is a common sentiment I've read many times from witnesses right here on the BFF.

[Guest vilnoori]

Way off the mark. The cultures of the First Nations that I am familiar with use many stories to warn and teach both young and old lessons that they will never forget.

Try this one: (I'm not recounting the legend word for word because I am not a story teller in the Sto:lo tradition)

The Sto:lo believe that powerful beings visited three chiefs and gave them the knowledge of written language. The chiefs were given this knowledge to share with the people. When the powerful beings came back to see how well things were going - they found that the chiefs did not share the knowledge with the people and used it only for their own empowerment.

To punish them and to leave a permanent reminder that all knowledge must be shared and that the welfare of the people was more important than the self-serving interests of the few - the powerful beings turned the chiefs into a huge stone that can be seen until this day.

This story might easily be based on a historical event, such as this: three strangers more technologically advanced than the Sto:lo visited three villages headed by chiefs who they taught to read and write. Perhaps these strangers were Russian Orthodox monks, who were present in Alaska and ventured south on missionary trips, or they were Spanish seafarers stranded for a time before their fellows picked them up. At a large gathering the people were preached to about the importance of sharing and not using knowledge for selfish empowerment and gain. The people decided to erect a large stone to memorialize the event. The story was retold for hundreds of years and eventually transformed into this one.

See? No need to dishonour the ancestors by disbelieving the basis of this tradition. The stone is still very important and a reminder of the values instilled by them over many years. And no need to dismiss it as all invention. In fact taking it seriously not only benefits one because of the moral message it presents but also gives us an important clue to the history of these people, which could be followed up by further archaeological and historical research.

[Guest rockinkt]

This story might easily be based on a historical event, such as this: three strangers more technologically advanced than the Sto:lo visited three villages headed by chiefs who they taught to read and write. Perhaps these strangers were Russian Orthodox monks, who were present in Alaska and ventured south on missionary trips, or they were Spanish seafarers stranded for a time before their fellows picked them up. At a large gathering the people were preached to about the importance of sharing and not using knowledge for selfish empowerment and gain. The people decided to erect a large stone to memorialize the event. The story was retold for hundreds of years and eventually transformed into this one.

See? No need to dishonour the ancestors by disbelieving the basis of this tradition. The stone is still very important and a reminder of the values instilled by them over many years. And no need to dismiss it as all invention. In fact taking it seriously not only benefits one because of the moral message it presents but also gives us an important clue to the history of these people, which could be followed up by further archaeological and historical research.

The village site is close to 10,000 years old according to the archeological evidence. The village and rock have been there forever according to the traditions of the Sto:lo. That eliminates your wild speculation about real humans and a real historical event.

They saw a huge stone that was out of place and they came up with a great story to explain its reason for being there that included a cautionary tale.

That stone is far too big and heavy for any type of movement done by those on site during that time. - or this time either unless you are talking large machines and engineering knowledge.

Look up the White Rock legend one day. Another great story to explain a natural anomaly.

[Guest vilnoori]

low tech ways to move huge stones:

Txwelatse, a stone from Chilliwack with a story

www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/news_archives/stone_repat.pdf

Just because a village is dated to 10,000 years old doesn't mean the stone couldn't ever have been manipulated some time since then, not that it necessarily was. And the speculation was just that, speculation. I would really encourage you not to throw out all of this good stuff valuable as historical pointers to possible actual events. This is the oral history of a people. I feel the same about the Bible or any other nation's legends and stories that have been passed down or written down, and for example give my own family's oral history of their experiences during WWI and WWII in Poland more worth than anything I read in a textbook. History books are written by the winners and scholars with an agenda, but family history is told for no other reason than to preserve the memory of events and people and honour one's ancestors. Also as you say, to teach important lessons to youngsters.

There is also something to being able to say, "I don't know." I think perhaps skeptics are people who are profoundly uneasy with that nebulous and uncomfortable but necessary state of not being certain about everything, or all-wise. However it is necessary before you can learn something outside of your own world view. "Unless you become like a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." I hope that you are not losing your sense of wonder and discovery by embracing your point of view, rock. We really know so little.

[Guest Kerchak]

Yes there are many encounters like that,

Almost all of them these days. At the very least the vast vast majority.

but what if the whole point of the mythology is to be one of those lucky few who catch that glimpse? Sasquatch (and similar mythologies from all over the world) don't have to conform to the same "terrifying monster" meme. Think of seeing the sasquatch as a sign from the gods or the ancestors or whatever that you have entered a pivotal point in your life or that you discovered sacred ground, kind of like the burning bush in the book of Exodus.

I don't get the impression of some kind of desperation to see a sign from the gods when I listen to alleged bigfoot eye witnesses.

The sasquatch doesn't have to be or do anything other than allow you to glimpse it, and that is a common sentiment I've read many times from witnesses right here on the BFF.

Just like an animal right?

I'll say again, the myth of sasquatch is quite mundane and boring. If it was only myth, then why so mundane?

[Guest]

Almost all of them these days. At the very least the vast vast majority.

Perhaps the vast majority we discuss here. Remember, the BFF is generally unfriendly to paranormal squatchiness, but there certainly are people today claiming wondrous powers for bigfoots. Also, the mere ability to evade modern humans is, in itself, a mystical quality in the eyes of many.

I don't get the impression of some kind of desperation to see a sign from the gods when I listen to alleged bigfoot eye witnesses.

No, me neither. But there are two things at play. First, you've got modern folks potentially engaging in a modern interpretation of ancient mythology. There's no reason to assume that all the finer points have been accurately transmitted. To take part in the modern mythology, everybody now knows that you report that bigfoot approached your campsite or bigfoot crossed the road in front of you or something like that. If you claim that bigfoot looked into your soul and telepathically communicated that we humans need to stop fracking for natural gas or something, no one would give you the time of day.

Next, consider all the many eyewitness accounts you've read. Even if it was just something as mundane as a lumbering bigfoot crossing the road ahead of someone, how does the person claim to have been affected by the encounter? It's very common for people to report the experience as "life altering."

I'll say again, the myth of sasquatch is quite mundane and boring. If it was only myth, then why so mundane?

In summary, it's a great question, but I don't think it's as mundane as your comments reflect and the encounter being mundane (on the surface at least) is an integral part of the modern mythology.

[Guest]

HUH?

Ok, laying it out step by step.

Way back up the thread, the allegation was made that if BF was a real, flesh and blood creature that also had spiritual significance to NA people, then they would be in possession of bits and pieces of BF (the creature) the same way they have bear claws, eagle feathers, etc for use in their ceremonial practices. Consequent to that, the claim is made that the LACK of physical bits and bobs of BF indicates a lack of physical BF to produce those bits and bobs.

However, BF stories in NA traditions are strongly of the "stay away from" and "don't mess with" variety. Areas where BF is said to be are taboo. They don't go there. They don't hunt BF either out of respect for (benign tales) or fear of (not so benign tales) the creature.

So, by inisisting that for BF to be a real flesh and blood creature the NA people MUST have collected physical bits and bobs of the creatures for ceremonial use is to suggest that they break the taboo that requires them to stay away from BF and it's environs in order to fulfill their cultural requirements.

Is that any clearer?

[Guest]

The point is not that the traditions are handed down in such a way that the intent is preserved over many generations. That's fine. My question concerns how you have broadly brushed "Native American" traditions by assuming that all the many cultures in North America have forever shared the taboo of touching or collecting a piece of sasquatch. It's akin to stating that "Africans" share the same cultural attitudes toward chimps, which we know to not be the case: In some African cultures, you forever get cooties if you touch a chimp; in others, chimps are viewed as exquisite with a light Hollandaise.

My view is based on my readings of the appropriate texts as transcribed. Most of which have said "leave the [bF] alone". Either because he was feared, or respected.

Oh, ok, so NA peoples just invented boogymen and lied to their kids to control them. Is that something you would do? Doesn't sound like the down to earth people I know. What a nice way to think of them. Patronizing at best. Thumbs down on that idea. Besides, they had no need to invent boogymen, there were plenty of real dangers out there, like grizzlies and cougars. C'mon.

Exactly!

Your lack of critical thinking betrays you.

The Boogeyman is a term for a story that protects children from the hazards they might encounter.

http://www.usm.maine.edu/lac/ot/divman/passamaquoddy.pdf

So the story of the "hairy man" [or other name] cannot be deployed for more than one purpose? (See my response to vilnorri).

Way off the mark. The cultures of the First Nations that I am familiar with use many stories to warn and teach both young and old lessons that they will never forget.

Try this one: (I'm not recounting the legend word for word because I am not a story teller in the Sto:lo tradition)

The Sto:lo believe that powerful beings visited three chiefs and gave them the knowledge of written language. The chiefs were given this knowledge to share with the people. When the powerful beings came back to see how well things were going - they found that the chiefs did not share the knowledge with the people and used it only for their own empowerment.

To punish them and to leave a permanent reminder that all knowledge must be shared and that the welfare of the people was more important than the self-serving interests of the few - the powerful beings turned the chiefs into a huge stone that can be seen until this day.

And this has exactly what to do with the nature of BF as both flesh and blood AND spirit in NA tradition?

[Huntster]

Why would there be any evolutionary pressure for a Giant Beast 9' tall, to hide like a squirrel?

The same reason all creatures hide:

because they're hiding from predators. Us.

A squirrel needs to hide because if it doesn't it gets eaten. Nothing eats Bigfoot.

There has been no legal requirement over the past 20,000 years that I know of that one must eat the bigfeet one kills.

You say they are going into caves or trees to avoid humans, why?

To avoid being killed.

Have humans killed off the ones who don't have the trait to hide in caves or trees?

There's a very good possibility of that.

if so, where are the bodies?

Decomposed. Where else?

I see no reason to say how a Bigfoot would know to avoid us.

How does a squirrel, gorilla, or spider know to avoid us?

[Huntster]

Sasquatch, on 07 September 2010 - 05:53 AM, said:

Do you think that EVERY sighting is made up?

I think a lot more are simply made up than folks here would like to acknowledge

I'll suggest 98% are made up or misidentifications. Perhaps one to two percent are not.

You know what that means, right?

[Guest]

I'll suggest 98% are made up or misidentifications. Perhaps one to two percent are not.

You know what that means, right?

It means that you still haven't explained how to tell the "real" ones from the "fake" ones?

[Guest]

That was funny.

[Guest alex]

All other creatures with supernatural abilities are real to you skeptics, but not sasquatch, since you can't accept the fact that we would never know how rare a modern hominid other than ourselves would be

[Guest]

All other creatures with supernatural abilities are real to you skeptics, but not sasquatch, since you can't accept the fact that we would never know how rare a modern hominid other than ourselves would be

Please enlighten me on all those other creatures with supernatural abilities we skeptics regard as "real." This should be fun.

[Guest]

^Don't be a pedant, Sas...you know what he meant. You accept that NAs lived around bears and don't dismiss what they have to tell us about bears simply because their mythology incorporates Bear. Why is sasquatch different? It's a real critter that shared their environment that they ascribe certain supernatural traits to.