Jump to content

1840 Missionary Account Of Spokane Tribe Myth


Recommended Posts

 

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...

 

 

Nightwalker, I was addressing the charge sometimes made about bigfoot originating from mythological sources.  There are many mythical creatures in folklore: leprechauns, fairies, dragons, unicorns, sea serpents, etc., and you can apply the zilch evidence to them, as you say, since they don't leave footprints, hair, or unique fingerprints behind, nor do they have the volume of sightings from olden times that still regularly persist today.  It's apples and oranges, you can't place them in the same category.

 

You do make a comparison of the volume of UFO sightings occurring today, but I'm not aware of any mythological tales of UFO aliens giving rise to what people are seeing today, which I was focused on the idea that mythological tales is the source of the bigfoot phenomenon.  Many people who previously didn't believe in bigfoot are reporting encounters, it's not them turning their mythology into reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

Nightwalker, I was addressing the charge sometimes made about bigfoot originating from mythological sources.  There are many mythical creatures in folklore: leprechauns, fairies, dragons, unicorns, sea serpents, etc., and you can apply the zilch evidence to them, as you say, since they don't leave footprints, hair, or unique fingerprints behind, nor do they have the volume of sightings from olden times that still regularly persist today.  It's apples and oranges, you can't place them in the same category.

 

What are you talking about? Mythical creatures apparently DO leave behind evidence just like Bigfoot:

 

burrunjorfootprint.jpg

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/leftovers-texas-mini-rex-report-and.html

 

20100918_Dino_2210-Footprint.jpg

http://the-auditorium.com/blog/2015/02/17/new-dragon-species-discovered-in-madagascar/

 

penguin3.jpg

http://floridazone.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/clearwaters-giant-penguin-mystery.html

 

2ecouxh.jpg

http://home.yowieocalypse.com/Loch_Ness_Monster_9/

 

DNA tests of suspected Bigfoot hairs reveal them to be from mundane sources (ie not from Bigfoot). Testing the DNA of purported dragon scales, fairy clothes, hobgoblin hair would be expected to reveal similar results.

 

So, other mythical creatures DO leave behind "evidence" just like Bigfoot - just nothing that can be objectively verified - that's kinda the point...

 

 

You do make a comparison of the volume of UFO sightings occurring today, but I'm not aware of any mythological tales of UFO aliens giving rise to what people are seeing today, which I was focused on the idea that mythological tales is the source of the bigfoot phenomenon.  Many people who previously didn't believe in bigfoot are reporting encounters, it's not them turning their mythology into reality.

 

 

You're not aware of the ancient astronauts hypothesis, of mysterious air ships of the late 1800s, or of native folklore from all around the world of people from the stars/sky? UFOs became popular during the Cold War (surprise, surprise) yet there are precedents within the folklore that go way back. Just like Bigfoot...

 

There are also many people who claimed that they, too, didn't believe in lake monsters, sea serpents, ghosts, UFOs, faeries, dogmen, dragons, etc until they saw them with their own eyes. Just like Bigfoot...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

 

 

 

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...

 

 

I'm curious. Do you go to UFO or ghost forums and tell the people there how wrong they are?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

The name "bigfoot" was created in the 1950's here in the Appalachian mountains before that my great, great grandparents called them Wood Boogers. 

 

According to Napier's (1973) Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality - "The term Bigfoot has been in colloquial use since the early 1920s and in the first instance was a brain-child of the press."

 

I haven't found any references for that yet but I have found pre-1950s references to "big foot" to imply rugged outdoor manliness...

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

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...

 

I'm curious. Do you go to UFO or ghost forums and tell the people there how wrong they are?

Absolutely! Thats what James Randi disciples do! They run around trying to save the world from its own self! What a noble endeavor!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

 

 

I'm curious. Do you go to UFO or ghost forums and tell the people there how wrong they are?

 

 

Not on internet forums but I do go to local paranormal meetings to discuss alternative explanations for such anomalous phenomena in person. I have more of an interest in Bigfoot (I still go searching for the Australian Bigfoot) than UFOs and ghosts but, like it or not, they are related phenomena...

 

Is it inconceivable to you that you may be wrong about something that can be subjectively seen and experienced but cannot be objectively documented? Many UFO and ghost believers are the same - they know what they saw despite the objective evidence (and complete lack thereof). That's ok. I understand that seeing a Bigfoot/UFO/ghost has strong personal significance - much more so than the idea of simply being mistaken...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

<Is it inconceivable to you that you may be wrong about something that can be subjectively seen and experienced but cannot be objectively documented?>

 

I'm a skeptic, so yes, I understand I could be wrong and bigfoot actually does exists.

 

One more question. What does any of this have to do with the 1840 Missionary Account of Spokane Tribe Myth? Did they see a UFO? Or some sort of three toed reptile? Or maybe the Loch Ness Monster?

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

 

 

 

I'm curious. Do you go to UFO or ghost forums and tell the people there how wrong they are?

Absolutely! Thats what James Randi disciples do! They run around trying to save the world from its own self! What a noble endeavor!

 

 

Anyone who doesn't conform to what JREFers say about Bigfoot, myself included, is considered to be BLAARGing (whatever that means). However, everyone is free to believe in whatever they like - I'm simply seeking reasonable alternative explanations for the data. It's not rocket science: lots of claims + zero verifiable objective evidence = human-based phenomenon. Bigfoot is illusive rather than elusive...

 

Is preaching otherwise (ie Bigfoot = real creature) on the interweb somehow a noble endeavour to you, norseman?

 

One more question. What does any of this have to do with the 1840 Missionary Account of Spokane Tribe Myth? Did they see a UFO? Or some sort of three toed reptile? Or maybe the Loch Ness Monster?

 

 

It's just how this particular conversation panned out:

 

#21 Johnny G: Many cultures, including Europeans in the past, had/have a very blurry line between myth and reality...

#26 jayjeti: Regarding sasquatches vs mythical creatures, how many today report dragon sightings, or sea monsters, or seeing other mythological creatures?...

#28 Night Walker: 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...

 

etc...

 

Myths have always been important to us...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

^That's called derailing a thread, you don't need a bunch of photos to make that point. You addressed everything except BF in relation to Native American myth. If you know nothing about Native American Myth in relation to BF, just say so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

Relax. It's called having a conversation - things go off on a tangent sometimes. Myths are related to other myths...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

No, it's not having a conversation. We were having one until this "other myth" stuff was brought up. It's called hijacking or derailing as it has nothing to do with the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

Then by all means - slap jayjeti on the wrist for bringing the distractions up and punish me for simply answering questions put to me in the course of this thread. We are obviously sooooo naughty...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

And I support you in that. However, it is totally appropriate to discuss any myth (for example, the 1840 Spokane tribe myths) in its context - i.e. with "other myths". It's all mythology, after all...

Edited by Night Walker
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Night Walker wrote:

Anyone who doesn't conform to what JREFers say about Bigfoot, myself included, is considered to be BLAARGing (whatever that means). However, everyone is free to believe in whatever they like - I'm simply seeking reasonable alternative explanations for the data. It's not rocket science: lots of claims + zero verifiable objective evidence = human-based phenomenon. Bigfoot is illusive rather than elusive...

Is preaching otherwise (ie Bigfoot = real creature) on the interweb somehow a noble endeavour to you, norseman?

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Telling the truth is a noble endeavor, absolutely. Even if the truth is unpopular and your mocked for it.

Answer me this, I've never been to Australia and I have no idea if Yowie exists, so I'm impartial to it. Its perfectly OK to simply say "I dont know". But you on the other hand your gonna tell us that Sasquatch does not exist from half a world away? How much vine maple and devils club have you crawled through?

I see the way they treat you over there, all I can tell you is this?

If you have had something pique your interest and your in the back country exploring it further, that IS science. Much more so than a smug English Scientist proclaiming "poppycock" from half a world away.

The hobbit, denisovians, our preconcieved notions get punched in the face every day. And that is a healthy thing.

Enjoy our forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...