1840 Missionary Account Of Spokane Tribe Myth

[Rockape]

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...

But your post was very flawed. That cast held by Ivan Sanderson is a known hoax, it is not a myth. Nessie has only one known mention other than the late 1800's when sighting started being reported, no myth among the locals there either. UFO's are not a myth, they are very real. It is a term coined by the US military to describes objects in the sky that are unknown. Just because it turns out to be a weather balloon instead of an aircraft piloted by little green men doesn't make it a myth. Talking ghosts gets into the afterlife and religion which cannot be discussed in this section of the forum.

 

All those plus dragons, fairies, whatever are not part of the Native American folklore pertaining to sasquatch/bigfoot. They should only be brought up in direct relation to NA folklore regarding sas/bf. Whether dragons, faires, etc. exist has nothing to do with the topic at hand and trying to use them to dismiss sas/bf in NA folklore is the same as trying to dismiss Nessie because some NA tribes believe there was an actual creature we call bigfoot.

 

If you read my posts in this thread you will see I am very dismissive of many NA stories actually pertaining to BF. But being NA myself this is a subject I would like to see discussed without the usual jref type debate. I'd rather stick to the subject at hand in hopes more comes out in direct relation to NA stories regarding BF, so I will once again ask both you and jayjeti to not derail this topic with debate that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Thanks.

[Night Walker]

 

But your post was very flawed. That cast held by Ivan Sanderson is a known hoax, it is not a myth. Nessie has only one known mention other than the late 1800's when sighting started being reported, no myth among the locals there either. UFO's are not a myth, they are very real. It is a term coined by the US military to describes objects in the sky that are unknown. Just because it turns out to be a weather balloon instead of an aircraft piloted by little green men doesn't make it a myth. Talking ghosts gets into the afterlife and religion which cannot be discussed in this section of the forum.

 

All those plus dragons, fairies, whatever are not part of the Native American folklore pertaining to sasquatch/bigfoot. They should only be brought up in direct relation to NA folklore regarding sas/bf. Whether dragons, faires, etc. exist has nothing to do with the topic at hand and trying to use them to dismiss sas/bf in NA folklore is the same as trying to dismiss Nessie because some NA tribes believe there was an actual creature we call bigfoot.

 

 

I am not “dismissing†folklore – I am simply looking at it and trying to understand it from a perspective different to yours. Let me try to explain:

 

Sure, UFOs are very real – technically they are just unidentified flying objects and people do sometimes mistake weather balloons for extra-terrestrial craft piloted by green men. Yet the process after seeing the mundane object becomes folklore when an explanation is sought and the extra-terrestrial narrative is added. This added narrative does not exist in a vacuum but, instead, is inspired by and added to previous similar narratives. UFOs, then, have become synonymous with something much larger - aliens, advanced technologies, and conspiracies - rather than with the rather mundane events on which they are based.

 

This process appears to be universal – we all do it to some degree or other and it is largely defined by culture (ie beliefs/stories/practices that have come before). It also applies to Bigfoot (or more accurately “what people conceive Bigfoot to beâ€). Interestingly, fakery does play a significant role within folklore paradoxically by increasing the perceived “reality†of the phenomenon. One person’s “hoax†is another’s “truth†depending on what is perceived and believed. There IS a “very blurry line between myth and reality†precisely because of the subjective nature of the territory...

 

 

 

If you read my posts in this thread you will see I am very dismissive of many NA stories actually pertaining to BF. But being NA myself this is a subject I would like to see discussed without the usual jref type debate. I'd rather stick to the subject at hand in hopes more comes out in direct relation to NA stories regarding BF, so I will once again ask both you and jayjeti to not derail this topic with debate that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Thanks.

 

 

A topic can cover many different aspects both specifically and generally. The previous specific conversation about the OP is still present, can be added to any time, and is somewhat separate from this recent discussion about myths in general. However, they are more relevant to one another than crying “derailment†and continually discussing the merits and otherwise of that. So I appreciate it if you, too, stayed on topic – specifically or generally. You’ve said your piece on this already – whether moderation is actually needed here or not is out of our hands…

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.

 

 

Yes – getting our preconceived notions challenged is a good thing. But, just like those JREFers (who you, in turn, seem happy to mock) you seem comfortable challenging other people’s notions but not necessarily your own. With an ambiguous subject like Bigfoot, “truthâ€, too, is subjective. “Truthâ€, though, may not be really what happened particularly if the objective evidence doesn’t support it. If you consider your relative position on Bigfoot to be noble and others as being not so then you are motivated (biased) towards what you already “know†and motivated (biased) against those you already consider to be ignoble. Personally, I find that tends to block potential understanding…

 

Your position touches on the importance of personal experience – as an Aussie what would I know of Bigfoot and North America? I’ve never crawled through vine maple and devils club so what would I know? Well, I know that people here in the arse-end of the world (As Australia was once described by one of its former PMS) are speaking the same language, making the same claims, pondering the same ambiguous “evidenceâ€, and reaching the same conclusions as our North American cousins. It is no surprise that Bigfoot is being experienced once again in England but is it a real creature? Well, it’s as “real†as anything in Australia and North America but then I’ve never crawled through Sherwood Forest either…

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thank you for sharing that. I  enjoy those type of stories.

[Rockape]

I am not “dismissing†folklore – I am simply looking at it and trying to understand it from a perspective different to yours.

 

 

No, what you are trying to do is bring a JREF argument to a Bigfoot discussion. To the Spokane tribe it was not myth. They believed it real, they lived in those woods, you didn't. You thinking it nothing but myth doesn't change that. I have no idea if they are right, but to dismiss it as nothing but campfire stories shows a closed mind. A closed mind doesn't belong in honest discussion, it belongs at JREF where they pretend to be skeptics.

 

 

 So I appreciate it if you, too, stayed on topic – specifically or generally.

 

I'm discussing the topic of this thread and how it hasn't a thing to do with Loch Ness, UFO's, dragons, etc. and it actually isn't about a "myth". It is poorly titled in that aspect. This story by Rev Walker (if you bothered to read the link in the op) is not relating a classic mythological story, it is relating what the Spokane people told him about what lived in the mountains. Native Americans only had oral history so they had plenty of mythological tales, there are entire books composed of Coyote tales alone, but this was not related to Rev Walker in that fashion. Many Native American stories that some say describe bigfoot or a bigfoot type creature are indeed myth, or "campfire stories" if you will, but this is not one of them.

For you, it is nothing but a myth and case closed, along with your mind. Offering nothing but "it's  a myth along with dragons etc." is worthless towards the discussion. It doesn't show how the Spokane were merely relating a mythical story as you try to portray it. It does nothing to address the question in the OP asking if this story of the Spokane shows there was a creature in those woods which aligns with what we today know as saquatch/bigfoot. That would add value to the discussion. All it does is show you are totally dismissive of the Spokane people and what they believe. Ok, we get it, it's nothing but myth for you, thanks for playing.

 

 

You’ve said your piece on this already

 

Oh, I haven't even got started yet.

[norseman]

Yes – getting our preconceived notions challenged is a good thing. But, just like those JREFers (who you, in turn, seem happy to mock) you seem comfortable challenging other people’s notions but not necessarily your own. With an ambiguous subject like Bigfoot, “truthâ€, too, is subjective. “Truthâ€, though, may not be really what happened particularly if the objective evidence doesn’t support it. If you consider your relative position on Bigfoot to be noble and others as being not so then you are motivated (biased) towards what you already “know†and motivated (biased) against those you already consider to be ignoble. Personally, I find that tends to block potential understanding…

Your position touches on the importance of personal experience – as an Aussie what would I know of Bigfoot and North America? I’ve never crawled through vine maple and devils club so what would I know? Well, I know that people here in the arse-end of the world (As Australia was once described by one of its former PMS) are speaking the same language, making the same claims, pondering the same ambiguous “evidenceâ€, and reaching the same conclusions as our North American cousins. It is no surprise that Bigfoot is being experienced once again in England but is it a real creature? Well, it’s as “real†as anything in Australia and North America but then I’ve never crawled through Sherwood Forest either…

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

So without any sort of investigation at all? Your just going to sweep your hand across the globe and make a profound statement that their are no bipedal cryptids left in the world? I cannot even fathom the depth of the ignorance in that statement. That is something that would come straight out of James Randi's mouth.

I have no preconcieved notions, but I did see a bipedal trackway in very deep snow once.

Look, I dont want you to take my word on anything, and I do what I can to provide a type specimen for the world, but your right I do not respect armchair quarterbacks. And because you go out looking for Yowie? They mock you as well as a closet believer.

You have a much better hand than I do........Ebu Gogo? The Hobbit? An island dwarfed sub species of Homo Erectus living in your neighborhood roughly ONLY ten thousand years ago? Yah! The scientific establishment didnt like that one, no way possible that was anything but a dwarfed Homo Sapien, they said.

Well........they were wrong. Why? Preconcieved notions? Ponder that one for a bit.

[JDL]

One can insist that a cryptid is just a wishful manifestation of myth or folklore, but consider this:

 

If a cryptid exists and has been encountered by mankind, then it must also exist in folklore.

[Drew]

If it's just a Bogeyman story then no, it does not have to be encountered.

 

It sounds like another manifestation of the Owl-man story.

[JDL]

If a cryptid does exist, then there will be folklore, so the premise that something is just folklore, simply because it is considered folklore is false.

[norseman]

If a cryptid does exist, then there will be folklore, so the premise that something is just folklore, simply because it is considered folklore is false.

As we found with the hobbit.

[adam2323]

Norseman,

Great post and a good story. All cultures throughout history have their folklore. Some are myths some are a combination of half truths and myths. However with the native Americans... There are just to many similar descriptions of the "wild man of the woods" "boss of the woods" to outright dismiss them as "just folkloric".

As is human nature some of the stories from native Americans is no doubt embellished; however the core story, of all the different tribes is essentially the same. IMO I lends major credibility to the existence of Sasquatch.

Adam

[norseman]

Thanks, yah the one glaring scientific fact that makes Drew's point moot? Is there is no fossil evidence for a "Owl man" on the planet......anywhere.

No one can say that about a large upright walking primate of course.......no debate at all.

So then the question becomes extinct or extant (timeline) and where?

[Drew]

Thanks, yah the one glaring scientific fact that makes Drew's point moot? Is there is no fossil evidence for a "Owl man" on the planet......anywhere.

No one can say that about a large upright walking primate of course.......no debate at all.

So then the question becomes extinct or extant (timeline) and where?

 

Yeah, there are all kinds of upright walking primates in the fairly complete fossil record of North America...

[norseman]

And by "fairly complete" do you mean that there are no fossil discoveries left in north America???

And what about the Yeren, Orang Pendak, Yeti or Almasty? We do have some fossils from Asia, so you believe in the possibility of these cryptids right Drew???

No. Of course you dont.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I apologize ahead of time for lobbing these two particular rocks into the camp but in one area I think I can offer some common sense. 

 

The UFO phenom that began in the late !(%)'s and was full bore in the minds of the American public by the early sixties was the result of a government run program to cover up the U-2 and later SR Blackbird spy planes. Nearly all sightings reported by pilots were of high flying U-2's which were silver-skinned craft catching the sun's rays. Why? because they flew at 60,000 ft.!  Commercial pilots in those days didn't know of ANYTHING that flew higher than 40,000 ft. so they reported them in as UFO's. The CIA in 1996 and again in 2012 admitted the ruse.

 

In the 1960's Project Blue Book closed with the summary that 95% of all UFO sightings could be explained by natural or manmade causes. The 5% unexplained at the time were because the summary panel wasn't ALLOWED to fill in the blanks and explain that the spy planes were in fact most if not all of the remaining 5%.

 

Again, sorry for the non sequitur. Just thought getting the UFO thing out of current mythology would be an OK thing to do. Back to the topic.

[Guest WesT]

UFO's are real so they can't be a myth at the same time. Some myths turn out to be true, and when that happens its no longer a myth. Google it.