Native American Bigfoot Legends

[Guest]

read David Pauledes book called Tribal Bigfoot, and listen to what the Klamath Indians say about Bigfoot based on up-to-date experiences. Let's forget the oral history for now.

I've read Paulides other book on Bigfoot, The Hoopa Project. Paulides' interviews with First Nation's people, as well as his use of a forensic police artist, clearly represent Bigfoot as large, hair covered Indians, which seems to comport well with other Indian statements through the years, such as the original Burns' articles in the 20s and 30s, and a First Nation response to the Mt. St. Helen "ape attack" story in the 20s.

Here's a question: Does anyone on this thread agree with the Indian assertion that Bigfoot are Indians?

[JDL]

In what respect?  With respect that they are people and were an established population prior to Western colonization?

[Incorrigible1]

Why is it each of GeorgeM's postings appear in bold? Is that something he does each time he posts? Is it too much to expect his to appear like the rest of us?

 

Inquiring minds want to know....

Edited April 9, 2014 by Incorrigible1

[Guest]

 Does anyone on this thread agree with the Indian assertion that Bigfoot are Indians?

 

I can't say that I agree the notion, sorry.  It sounds like the fairly common element in story telling where a personal connection is established with the main protagonist/antagonist.

 

Classic example:  When Darth Vader reveals that he was Luke Skywalker's father, Anakin Skywalker, part way through the (original) Star Wars trilogy.

[Guest]

LoL, cannibalism was pretty rampant in Africa, no need for BF. Children were poplular snacks by hungry locals. It was a normal form of food-gathering, and still goes on now. Look up English in Africa etc.

 

I like the troll concept of BF, but Wodrose was one of the terms used in old europe. Not sure if they kidnapped children as much as we have heard about. American Indians have some folklore of them being cannibals. It seems only White-Europeans have 'touchy- feely' relationships (habbers) with them. LoL.

 

 

There also seems to be 'human type' BF and 'monkey' (patty)? type BF. (Actually about 4 species ) are considered now. One may be related to American Indians? Who knows. They are highly intelligent, beyond an ape, obviously.

[georgerm]

Why is it each of GeorgeM's postings appear in bold? Is that something he does each time he posts? Is it too much to expect his to appear like the rest of us?

 

Inquiring minds want to know....

 

The small type is hard for me to see, and the type is not in bold. My posts are easy to read and no more important than anyone elses. When all post are the same font and size it's boring imho.

 

 

The pictures from Paulides book, Tribal Bigfoot, depict BF as being very human. Patty didn't look very human.

Edited April 9, 2014 by georgerm

[Guest]

In what respect?  With respect that they are people and were an established population prior to Western colonization?

Yes.

[JDL]

Then by that definition they are native Americans.

[Guest]

There's a very feasible way. Go talk to the Native Americans yourself about Tsu Kalul.

 

http://visitcherokeenc.com/the-people/maps/

 

 

 

That way you can look them in the eye. Which is vastly more effective than an internet forum.

 

Plus, it's beautiful up there.

I've had people lie right to my face without flinching and apparently without remorse. Sometimes I can tell, sometimes I can't.

It's an interesting approach.  To devalue the culture like that.  But hey, they were but savages, no?

All cultures go through the same processes. Stories change all the time. Word of mouth is one of the least reliable forms of data transmission. Cultures also share stories and adopt the ones they like just like we do today. There is nothing devalued in that.

Granted. These were also the same people who lied through their teeth about El Dorado and the fountain of youth, so there's that.

In any case, Indian legends are really interesting and I enjoy them. But again they aren't very reliable, for the reasons mentioned before and also for the fact that those legends were maintained orally. Any historian worth their salt will tell you that the oral tradition is far from reliable. Who knows how much these Bigfoot legends, if indeed they are about Bigfoot, has changed over the centuries as they changed hands?

Many of these stories may actually be about other species now extinct. Giant is a good name for mammoths, mastodons, megatherium, and short faced bears to name just a few.

There were similar stories told about small forest people by native tribes in Indonesia which turned out to resemble homo floresiensis.

 

ROD

Both stories and reports also resemble juvenile orangutans. However, there is the possibility that H. floresiensis inspired those stories or at least some of them. There can easily be multiple sources of stories that can be combined into a new narrative.

[Guest keninsc]

 

The small type is hard for me to see, and the type is not in bold. My posts are easy to read and no more important than anyone elses. When all post are the same font and size it's boring imho.

 

 

The pictures from Paulides book, Tribal Bigfoot, depict BF as being very human. Patty didn't look very human.

 

That is going to depend on how that particular tribe holds a Bigfoot. Some call them wildmen, some call them creatures, some call them spirits. The way they see them is often reflected in in their pictographs and glyphs.

Edited April 12, 2014 by keninsc

[MIB]

That is going to depend on how that particular tribe holds a Bigfoot..

 

That, in turn, probably reflects their tribe's first contact.   Some say they traded with BF, others that their women and children were taken, others yet that they got eaten.   It depends then on the actions of the individuals from each side when first contact is made.

 

MIB

[Guest LarryP]

I've had people lie right to my face without flinching and apparently without remorse. Sometimes I can tell, sometimes I can't.

 

 

The eyes are always the giveaway. Which is why I always know if someone is lying to me.

 

So I can assure you that the NA's that I've spoken to were telling me the truth. 

 

Plus they had no incentive to lie to me in the first place.

[Guest]

The eyes are always the giveaway. Which is why I always know if someone is lying to me.

 

So I can assure you that the NA's that I've spoken to were telling me the truth. 

Remind me to never take you as a partner in any games of chance.

 

LarryP said:

Plus they had no incentive to lie to me in the first place.

Again, if we were talking about pale face instead of the noble savage, you would likely suggest human greed.

[georgerm]

This topic has digressed from word of mouth tribal knowledge passed down for many generations regarding BF to present day Native Americans being untruthful. Leftfoot are you saying that Native Americans tend to lie about BF more than other races?  If not, your statements can be interpreted this way so please clarify.

 

The problem with any eyewitness report is the truthfulness regardless of cultural heritage. Less than a week ago, a person told of his BF experience that took place three years ago just south of our town. He seemed truthful.

 

Leftfoot would you like to make a trip to the Klamath River Indian Reservation and tell me which ones are truthful in regards to BF's habits, and which ones aren't?

[Guest]

The eyes are always the giveaway. Which is why I always know if someone is lying to me.

 

So I can assure you that the NA's that I've spoken to were telling me the truth. 

 

Plus they had no incentive to lie to me in the first place.

When someone learns how to detect lies, they can learn how to hide their own.

 

People have never needed to have obvious reasons for lying. Unless you can read their minds, you have no idea what they might lie to you about.

This topic has digressed from word of mouth tribal knowledge passed down for many generations regarding BF to present day Native Americans being untruthful. Leftfoot are you saying that Native Americans tend to lie about BF more than other races?  If not, your statements can be interpreted this way so please clarify.

 

The problem with any eyewitness report is the truthfulness regardless of cultural heritage. Less than a week ago, a person told of his BF experience that took place three years ago just south of our town. He seemed truthful.

 

Leftfoot would you like to make a trip to the Klamath River Indian Reservation and tell me which ones are truthful in regards to BF's habits, and which ones aren't?

I think Leftfoot means that Native Americans are no more or less truthful than any other ethnic group including Europeans. Regardless of whether they are talking about bigfoot.