Bbc Article: Why Don't People See The Yeti Anymore?

[dmaker]

Of course, I am not kidding. I would have appreciated a response that spoke directly to my comment rather than some pseudo spiritual smoke blowing.

[norseman]

They are an indigenous population that has lived in harmony with their environment for thousands of years, like our own Native Americans.  It is a Western conceit to simply sweep aside those things that they claim to be fact.

Factual claims without supporting objective evidence are just stories. There is no cultural incumbency to accept one unsupported belief over another. I am sure there are many things that a Westerner could claim as fact that an Eastern person would not believe--even with supporting evidence. 

 

Native American mythology (much like Western Civ) is rife with fantastic creatures. Why should bigfoot (given the complete absence of any proof of existence) be treated any differently?

In my mind at least other than my own experience what makes bigfoot more compelling than other myths is our own understanding of the fossil record. Thats what makes Bigfoot special, we have fossil evidence of creatures that fit the description. That and the evidence such as the PGF, and the tracks, and the anecdotal sightings and all the rest.

Compared to other myths with the possible exception of lake monsters, if this was a popularity contest bigfoot wins hands down.

Coming from your POV its still a great mystery. Your talking about a ancient myth that holds two unique and seperate cultures spell bound, in which modern day people for 50 years hoax others to keep the myth alive in this day and age. It almost seems to good to be true.

[JDL]

As opposed to subjective opinion presented as pseudo fact?

 

I thought I was being nicer by not going with my originally intended response.  Your question was predicated on your own prejudices and beliefs and I chose not to dignify it with a direct response.

 

What I chose to do was attempt to hold the mirror up for you and ask how your opinions would go over when presented directly to people representing one of the cultures that you put down.

 

There may be no obligation to accept the precepts of another culture at face value, but it is bad form to dismiss them out of hand based on your own prejudicial and subjective opinions.

[dmaker]

" There may be no obligation to accept the precepts of another culture at face value, but it is bad form to dismiss them out of hand based on your own prejudicial and subjective opinions."

 

Hogwash. You are intentionally trying to vilify me to suit your own purposes. Why should bigfoot, lacking any real proof of existence, be treated any differently than other fantastic creature of Native myth?

 

Now please explain where I am dismissing bigfoot due to prejudice and subjective opinion.

Edited November 13, 2015 by dmaker

[JDL]

 

Why should bigfoot, lacking any real proof of existence, be treated any differently than other fantastic creature of Native myth?

 

 

^This.  You are the one who has subjectively designated it a fantastic creature of Native myth.  It's dismissive.

Unless, of course, you can PROVE that it is a fantastic creature of Native myth.

[dmaker]

Are you denying that bigfoot is found in Native myth?  Allow me to rephrase, then:  Why should bigfoot, lacking any proof of existence, be treated any differently than any other creature also described in Native myths?  Bigfoot was found in Native lore (according to enthusiasts) long before modern day reports. This is hardly dismissive or prejudiced. In fact, footers love to point this fact out quite often.

 

 

"Unless, of course, you can PROVE that it is a fantastic creature of Native myth."  

 

There is no proof that it exists at all.  The burden is on you to prove that bigfoot is not a myth.  Relying on the pseudoscientific prove a negative challenge? I would have expected better of you.

Edited November 13, 2015 by dmaker

[Bodhi]

JDL,

You seem to have a penchant for obfuscation and ad hominem bluster. Reflect upon that please.

Personally, I feel that your "belief" is waning and this lashing out is a reflection of the battle you are having within yourself. Or, you might not have gotten enough sleep or something. Definitely one of those....

[JDL]

Bigfoot is described as an actual creature by many contemporary Native Americans who have encounters to this day.  That is hardly myth or folklore.

 

What this comes down to is that your stance as a non-believer is no more based on fact than that of a believer, and neither position is as valid as that of someone who has stood face to face with a bigfoot.  Yet you act as is your position has greater moral foundation than that of a believer, when it does not. 

 

You cannot prove any of your assertions regarding the non-existence of bigfoot, you refuse to objectively consider the mass of consistent forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts that describe the same characteristics of the same creature across multiple cultures and continents, and you have even stated that you would not trust your own direct close up sighting of a bigfoot.  But worst of all, with no more than a belief to back up your claims, you keep insisting that other's positions are nothing more than beliefs and that your beliefs are the only valid beliefs on the subject.

[JDL]

Bodhi, if I were simply operating on belief my interest level wouldn't be high enough to participate in any bigfoot forum at all.  And I honestly can't tell you whether I'd lean toward your beliefs, or those of proponents. 

 

I'm confident in the existence of bigfoot, and in those behaviors of bigfoot that I have personally witnessed.  When I discuss a reported characteristic of bigfoot that I have not personally observed, I identify my position as opinion.  And there are plenty of aspects people claim regarding bigfoot that go beyond the realm of what I consider possible.  I can be as harsh a critic as you can in this respect.  But I've had experiences which have established a boundary condition when I consider evidence of any sort.  It's not a question of existence to me, it's all the other questions that arise once one is forced to accept that they exist that interest me.

[dmaker]

Bigfoot is described as an actual creature by many contemporary Native Americans who have encounters to this day.  That is hardly myth or folklore.

 

What this comes down to is that your stance as a non-believer is no more based on fact than that of a believer, and neither position is as valid as that of someone who has stood face to face with a bigfoot.  Yet you act as is your position has greater moral foundation than that of a believer, when it does not. 

 

 

Well, it's a fact that there is not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim. None. That is a fact. If you don't think my position as a non-believer has anything to do with that fact, then you are mistaken. 

 

Anecdotes are simply stories. Talk about them all you want, they have extremely limited value as scientific evidence. Consistent forensics? Not really. Some of those consistent forensics have been proven to be fabrications. Consistent tracks have fooled some of the "best in the business". Again, these are facts. Since, you know, you want to focus on facts. 

 

I don't believe that you have ever laid eyes on a bigfoot.  

[Bodhi]

Edited November 14, 2015 by See-Te-Cah NC
Please don't quote the directly-preceding post

[JDL]

 

Bigfoot is described as an actual creature by many contemporary Native Americans who have encounters to this day.  That is hardly myth or folklore.

 

What this comes down to is that your stance as a non-believer is no more based on fact than that of a believer, and neither position is as valid as that of someone who has stood face to face with a bigfoot.  Yet you act as is your position has greater moral foundation than that of a believer, when it does not. 

 

 

Well, it's a fact that there is not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim. None. That is a fact. If you don't think my position as a non-believer has anything to do with that fact, then you are mistaken. 

 

Anecdotes are simply stories. Talk about them all you want, they have extremely limited value as scientific evidence. Consistent forensics? Not really. Some of those consistent forensics have been proven to be fabrications. Consistent tracks have fooled some of the "best in the business". Again, these are facts. Since, you know, you want to focus on facts. 

 

I don't believe that you have ever laid eyes on a bigfoot.  

 

 

You overstate your case.  There is evidence that supports the existence of bigfoot, but it is not considered conclusive. 

 

Time will tell with regard to the rest of your contentions.  I'm confident of the final outcome.

 

I still don't understand what drives you to participate in this forum.  You've said that you have an interest in the group psychology.  I, in turn, do not believe this.

 

Were it as you say, you would be more of an objective observer, perhaps asking probing questions, but all you seem to do is bait those who want to have a serious discussion on the topic.

Edited November 13, 2015 by JDL

[Guest Stan Norton]

I'd suggest asking Hairy Man about the reality/mythic nature of sasquatch. But then she'd be the wrong kind of anthropologist, right?

Dragging things back on topic from yet another yawn-inducing existence drone, there may be several reasons why yeti reports are apparently less frequent. Nepal having been in the grip of a paralyzing civil conflict for over a decade being just one. Is anyone actually asking locals being another.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Stan Norton

[dmaker]

 

 

Bigfoot is described as an actual creature by many contemporary Native Americans who have encounters to this day.  That is hardly myth or folklore.

 

What this comes down to is that your stance as a non-believer is no more based on fact than that of a believer, and neither position is as valid as that of someone who has stood face to face with a bigfoot.  Yet you act as is your position has greater moral foundation than that of a believer, when it does not. 

 

 

Well, it's a fact that there is not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim. None. That is a fact. If you don't think my position as a non-believer has anything to do with that fact, then you are mistaken. 

 

Anecdotes are simply stories. Talk about them all you want, they have extremely limited value as scientific evidence. Consistent forensics? Not really. Some of those consistent forensics have been proven to be fabrications. Consistent tracks have fooled some of the "best in the business". Again, these are facts. Since, you know, you want to focus on facts. 

 

I don't believe that you have ever laid eyes on a bigfoot.  

 

 

You overstate your case.  There is evidence that supports the existence of bigfoot, but it is not considered conclusive. 

 

Time will tell with regard to the rest of your contentions.  I'm confident of the final outcome.

 

I still don't understand what drives you to participate in this forum.  You've said that you have an interest in the group psychology.  I, in turn, do not believe this.

 

Were it as you say, you would be more of an objective observer, perhaps asking probing questions, but all you seem to do is bait those who want to have a serious discussion on the topic.

 

I've said before that my main interest is in how proponents resist challenge to the bigfoot myth. How strongly and for what reasons. Even when presented with what seem to me like perfectly logical and valid arguments to the contrary. 

 

In turn, I don't understand what drives you to claim seeing bigfoots on multiple occasions.

Edited November 13, 2015 by dmaker

[JDL]

I'm here to share information with other folks who take this topic seriously.  To examine and analyze the available information.