norseman Posted July 30, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 The Reverend probably didn't make it up. It was told to him by some random indian who probably was handed down the story from another random indian. Sounds like a good story to keep the youngster in camp at night. Modern bigfoot can see in the daylight quite well. He doesn't collect logs. They don't really kidnap people. At least he hasn't been doing these things as much since the 1950's. if true? why does "finding bigfoot" go out at night to whoop and tree knock? collect logs? ever hear of a stick structure? we are very much in disagreement that the old myth and new myth dont line up. Not saying this gives a free pass on providing proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 collect logs? ever hear of a stick structure?...... I havent seen much that makes me think stick structures are related to bigfoot and I picture beams of wood to be more like logs as the author seems to be using this to assign great strength to the beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 31, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 thats not the point. the question is do many today assign the modern myth as having great strength and moving and stacking logs and or breaking trees? I think the answer is yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Sounds like a good story to keep the youngster in camp at night. Wouldn't need to make up stories to keep youngsters in camp when there are bears and mountain lions around to keep the youngsters in camp at night. They don't really kidnap people. There are a number of mysterious disappearances to this present decade that 'might' just be cases of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 You do that and you'll find bigfoots everywhere. Many of these stories merely decribe a human living wild. However, there is no doubt many can be construed as being a bigfoot, they usually are described as very tall and nocturnal, but I need more than that to say they are describing a bigfoot. Many of these stories specifically state they are just "indians" and also tell how they use fire and other human ways. I've also seen quite a few of these stories mention coyote (the trickster, but with a name like Yuchi I think you know what I mean and it doesn't need explanation) so that, to me at least, indicates it is nothing more than a Native American fairy tale. I also dismiss connections to bigfoot between skinwalkers or the Wendigo. And mind you, I'm not saying all are not describing what we would consider a bigfoot, many do, I just don't see as many that I would say "Yeah, they're talking about a BF" as others do. There are many current "research organizations" (can think of a couple here in Oklahoma) that see BF everywhere. IMO, the NA philosophy was much "cleaner" than the europeans' and while simplistic to those considering themselves more astute than NA's, they were probably (IMO) far more spot-on than imagined especially when you consider how attuned they were (as a group) to nature compared to the "civilized" europeans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Many cultures, including Europeans in the past, had/have a very blurry line between myth and reality. I think the difference with Sasquatch is that we continue to have encounters which appear to resemble the Indian accounts very closely. We don't have widespread Wendigo sightings (thankfully!). While it can be hard to separate fact from fiction when dealing with lore, the continuation of encounters with the same basic creature leads me to believe Sasquatch was a physical being. As well, I think it was a Finding Bigfoot episode where the team discussed the fact there is rock art where Sasquatch is depicted with known animals, being different from what would be found with spiritual art. I can't say how true that is, but it does match what I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 IMO, the NA philosophy was much "cleaner" than the europeans' and while simplistic to those considering themselves more astute than NA's, they were probably (IMO) far more spot-on than imagined especially when you consider how attuned they were (as a group) to nature compared to the "civilized" europeans. Agreed, but I still think they had the same experiences as people do today, short, fleeting glimpses of something that they tried to make sense of. Occasionally some people, both then and now, have longer exposure, but those are few and far between. As well, I think it was a Finding Bigfoot episode where the team discussed the fact there is rock art where Sasquatch is depicted with known animals, being different from what would be found with spiritual art. I can't say how true that is, but it does match what I believe. You should read up here... http://bigfootforums.blogspot.com/2015/06/kathy-strains-interview.html Our own "Hairy Man", who is actually a woman by the name of Kathy Strain, is an anthropologist who knows all about the Hairy Man pictographs. She answered our questions on KB's blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Many cultures, including Europeans in the past, had/have a very blurry line between myth and reality. I think the difference with Sasquatch is that we continue to have encounters which appear to resemble the Indian accounts very closely. We don't have widespread Wendigo sightings (thankfully!). While it can be hard to separate fact from fiction when dealing with lore, the continuation of encounters with the same basic creature leads me to believe Sasquatch was a physical being. As well, I think it was a Finding Bigfoot episode where the team discussed the fact there is rock art where Sasquatch is depicted with known animals, being different from what would be found with spiritual art. I can't say how true that is, but it does match what I believe. IMO, there is much we still do not understand such as how the Egyptian/Mayan pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island monoliths, et.al. were really built. It appears much knowledge/technology has been lost and likely more than once as (IMO) our creator(s) may have wiped the screen clean, multiple times and make you wonder if we aren't Humans 7.0 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This anecdotal account is quite consistent not only with modern reports, but also with the many other Native American stories. That is my opinion anyway. For instance, in this account alone there are some classic traits. We have whistling, rock throwing, nocturnal behavior, an unpleasant and strong odor, kidnapping humans, living in areas that are difficult for humans to access (ie the top of a mountain), and giant stature. The author compares these creatures to those mentioned in Biblical texts, and he is most likely referring to the Hebrew term "Nephilim," although there are dozens of accounts of giants in Biblical texts, from individuals to entire races. I highly doubt these Biblical accounts are referring to a bigfoot-like creature in most instances, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that an account or two could potentially refer to such animals, since sasquatch, or their direct predecessors, must have existed three to five-thousand years ago. There are very few attributes of this written account that are inconsistent with modern sasquatch knowledge, and these can be attributed to assumptions made by the Native American tribes who had some form of interaction with sasquatch. For instance, the author mentions that sasquatch cannot see in the daytime, which we can infer was included because this was the Native American belief of this particular group. Although this could have been an assumption made by the author himself. It is not possible that sasquatch cannot see at all during daylight hours. Otherwise we would see them walking into trees, falling off cliffs, and walking into holes all the time, thus we would have captured one by now. (Excluding the Jacko case, in which the purported bigfoot fell off a cliff and knocked himself out, and thus was captured. Jacko was probably a little slow, or either he just accidentally got too close to the cliff edge, IF this case occurred at all.) Even if I were to buy the idea that sasquatch cannot see as well during the day as they can at night, I think this difference is negligible. Evidence suggests their daytime vision is just fine, and is probably on par with that of humans. Although I wonder if there are nearsighted or farsighted sasquatch, as there are people? Surely scientists have done tests of this nature on non-human primates, although I have never come across any vision tests on such creatures. If other non-human primates have eyes that behave in a manner similar to our own, and thus can get messed up, I imagine sasquatch would follow the same pattern. Anyway, I agree with you completely that it is unfair to say that bigfoot is a modern invention. It is impossible for this to be the case. However, a skeptical individual would do better to say that enterprising individuals have simply resurrected old Native American legends. Such a claim would be inaccurate, but it would be more plausible than the claim that bigfoot is a modern invention or something like that. It would be next to impossible for every single bigfoot eyewitness to be well-read or knowledgeable regarding the characteristics of bigfoot behavior and appearance, much less knowledgeable regarding Native American accounts, thus fabricating a sighting with such characteristics. There are a large number of reports that lack specific details, and most conform to a hairy creature with a large stride, large feet, etc...If you take the more detailed accounts in which the eyewitness was able to gather more information, you start to see an even greater similarity with a wider variety of traits. Logically speaking, the more details that are included in a report, the less they should conform to classic bigfoot knowledge, since the odds of a random person knowing that many details will decrease in proportion to the number of details they give. So if you take all of the detailed accounts, you should expect to see a lot more variation than when compared with less detailed accounts. That seems logical to me anyway, but I suppose I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nipissing Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Interestingly, there is recent research to suggest that the epidemic of human nearsightedness is due in part to lack of exposure to outdoor light: http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120Assuming that sasquatch eyes are similar to ours, this is not likely be an issue for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Many cultures, including Europeans in the past, had/have a very blurry line between myth and reality. I think the difference with Sasquatch is that we continue to have encounters which appear to resemble the Indian accounts very closely. Regarding sasquatches vs mythical creatures, how many today report dragon sightings, or sea monsters, or seeing other mythological creatures? For those who would claim the bigfoot phenomenon is only a perpetuation of something born from mythological origins they must grapple with the thousands of reported encounters (still occurring on a regular basis today) as opposed to the minuscule reports of other alleged mythical creatures. But on top of that, they have to discount credible witnesses such as various law enforcement, clergy, and me (and I can attest I'm beyond reproach). Edited August 17, 2015 by jayjeti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Many cultures, including Europeans in the past, had/have a very blurry line between myth and reality. I think the difference with Sasquatch is that we continue to have encounters which appear to resemble the Indian accounts very closely. We don't have widespread Wendigo sightings (thankfully!). While it can be hard to separate fact from fiction when dealing with lore, the continuation of encounters with the same basic creature leads me to believe Sasquatch was a physical being. As well, I think it was a Finding Bigfoot episode where the team discussed the fact there is rock art where Sasquatch is depicted with known animals, being different from what would be found with spiritual art. I can't say how true that is, but it does match what I believe. IMO, there is much we still do not understand such as how the Egyptian/Mayan pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island monoliths, et.al. were really built. It appears much knowledge/technology has been lost and likely more than once as (IMO) our creator(s) may have wiped the screen clean, multiple times and make you wonder if we aren't Humans 7.0 . For Stonehenge at least the origins and function are pretty well nailed down... http://www.ai-journal.com/articles/10.5334/ai.1601/ ..but agreed, there is still much to learn about our ancient forebears and perhaps much that we will never fathom. We are unfortunately hobbled by our 21st century umwelt to truly get into the minds of prehistoric humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Regarding sasquatches vs mythical creatures, how many today report dragon sightings, or sea monsters, or seeing other mythological creatures? For those who would claim the bigfoot phenomenon is only a perpetuation of something born from mythological origins they must grapple with the thousands of reported encounters (still occurring on a regular basis today) as opposed to the minuscule reports of other alleged mythical creatures. But on top of that, they have to discount credible witnesses such as various law enforcement, clergy, and me (and I can attest I'm beyond reproach). While alleged sightings of dragons, sea serpents, and other mythological creatures (like Chupacabras, faeries, unicorns, etc) are dwarfed by the number of alleged Bigfoot sightings, those same alleged Bigfoot sightings are, in turn, dwarfed by alleged sightings of UFOs and ghosts. There is nothing with which to grapple conceptually – Bigfoot is the cryptid de jour (hence more alleged sightings than other cryptids) yet is still a bit-player compared to the main paranormal superstars (i.e. much less claims than for UFOs and ghosts). It’s to be expected that popular myths are claimed to be experienced more frequently than less popular ones… While there are some apparently credible witnesses of Bigfoot just as there are of aliens and ghosts (and even other cryptids), the verifiable objective evidence to support them is the same as it is for lesser mythological beasties – zilch. Again, that is to be expected if Bigfoot is mythical (ie a human-based phenomenon) rather than a zoological mystery. Credible people are still just people and everyone has the capacity to sometimes subjectively see and experience things that are not objectively there. The recent Milwaukee Lion scare is a case in point - believing is seeing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 There was also historical myths on the European continent until more recently , I think because of the deforestation that happened there.http://cryptozoology.freeservers.com/eurowildman.htm . http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/wudewasa.htm . The name "bigfoot" was created in the 1950's here in the Appalachian mountains before that my great, great grandparents called them Wood Boogers. My family has several encounter stories and one of the oldest dates from the 1920's . That was 30 years before the name "bigfoot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Coincidence or Something more? The term Seeahtiks, is a name used by some Native American Pacific Northwest tribes to describe what we refer today as Sasquatch Bigfoot. Less there is any doubt this being exists, I should note that Seeahtik and Sea-tac are curiously similar names. Sea-tac is the name of a thriving suburb nestled between Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, the same state that was first to recognize and introduce an ordinance against harming Sasquatch. Read the short excerpt that was published 90 years ago, and see if there is anything that resonates with the topic of discussion here. All of the cities named above are extremely close to Mount Rainier, Washington. Remember all the discussion about human parts found in the British Columbia area, phenomena that continues to this day is often dismissed as a work of criminals.... Whatever the cause for that, the fact remains it’s been ongoing for a very long time. Coincidence you say? I make no decision either way; I provided this information so you the reader can make your own informed decision. This is a good thread and thought it would a proper place to include this. SeaTac /ˈsiËtæk/ is an American city in southern King County, Washington, and an outlying suburb of Seattle, Washington. "SeaTac" is a combination of the first syllables of "Seattle" and "Tacoma." “are recognized by Northwestern Indians as none other than the Seeahtik Tribe of Indians. Seeahtik is a Clallam pronunciation. All other tribes of the Northwest pronounce it Seeahtkeh.†Source: Front Page of “The Oregonian†On July 16, 1924 “These facts are corroborated by Henry Napoleon, Clallam Tribe; L.J. James, Lummi Tribe; George Hyasman, Quinault Tribe.†Source: Front Page of “The Oregonian†On July 16, 1924 “Every Indian, especially of the Puget Sound Tribes, is familiar with the history of these strange giant Indians, as they are sometimes referred to by local Indians. Shaker Indians of Northwestern Oregon, and Washington Indians agree that the Seeahtik Indians are not less than seven feet tall and some have been seen that were fully eight feet in height.†Source: Front Page of “The Oregonian†On July 16, 1924 “The Seeahtiks play practical jokes upon them and steal their Indian Women. Sometimes an Indian Woman comes back. More often she does not, and it is even said by some Northwestern Indians that they have a strain of the Seeahtik blood in them. Oregon and Washington Indians differ in regard to the Seeahtiks’ home. The Oregon Indians assert they made their home in or near Mount Rainier, while the Puget Sound Indians say they live in the heart of the wilderness at Vancouver Island, B.C.†Source: Front Page of “The Oregonian†On July 16, 1924 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts