Guest Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Well you read the actual old newspaper accounts and the source tribal legends ( not the distorted Strain or Green or Meldrum versions) and form your own opinions. I have and I think they are describing humans as I outlined in my prior post. Really? You think the old reports including Native American/First Nations people were describing humans......really??? How do you explain the totem pole carvings of Dsonoqua and Buk'wus, the stone heads from the Hood River area, and the ceremonial costumes and masks that depict a creature closer to the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film than a human. I don't recall many places named for humans in the Native American/First Nations tradition. Skookum, cultus etc. don't seem to describe humans. I find your response disingenious IMHO. Perhaps the picky "Bigfoot pre 1958" semantics are difficult to defend, so a diversion is called for. As always, this is my opinion only, your results may vary, and no warranty is expressed or implied!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 A quick Google search will reveal numerous accounts pre 1958 of ape-like creatures, wild men , monsters, etc published in various newspapers across the country. The topic is really about why nobody seems able to shoot one dead and bring it back to town. Lets not move the goal....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 There were no " Bigfoot" reports before 1958 . That is a fact. Put up or be quiet. Show us a report that uses the term Bigfoot before 1958. Since that time believers like Meldrum, Strain, Green and others have tried to make all kinds of earlier historic reports, legends, myths, talll tales, totem pole images, crazy hermits, tribal enemies, mistaken identifications, pictographs and "what have you" all fiit into some catchall fuzzy category which is given the 1958 name "Bigfoot". Of course it goes without saying that in no case before or after 1958 was any proof found of any actual Bigfoot (Meaning some sort of gigantic hair covered non homo sapiens primate as usually described in this forum and elsewhere) . I also think that Parnassus' post(s) are important as they do lead to questioning what we think about whether BF does or doesn't exist. I think that I have an open mind, but with a foundation of healthy skepticism, when it comes to BF. If there was an actual BF we could see, assess, etc...then I think skeptical threads and posts indicating BF doesn't exist, would be not relevant. But considering there is not concrete evidence that BF exists, it is wise to continue to have a healthy dose of skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 How do you explain the totem pole carvings of Dsonoqua and Buk'wus, the stone heads from the Hood River area, and the ceremonial costumes and masks that depict a creature closer to the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film than a human. The same way you might explain the carvings, flags, coat of arms, statues, paintings, and writings of Medusa, some with origins dating back to 200 BC. Medusa, oil on canvas mounted on wood, by Caravaggio, dated 1595. Or the flags, carvings, statues, emblems, coat of arms, tapestries, medals, paintings, mosaics, and drawings of unicorns, going as far back as the ancient Greeks and Biblical times. Unicorn medal by Pisanello, dated 1447. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 There were no " Bigfoot" reports before 1958 . That is a fact. Put up or be quiet. Show us a report that uses the term Bigfoot before 1958. This is a cheap ploy, The word Bigfoot was coined in 1958, prior to that people reported a wildman or woman covered in hair. and there is plenty of evidence pointing to that fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Medusa.............Really Ray, I gave you more credit than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Just trying to use the same logic you were. Did I succeed? Why, or why not? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 This is a cheap ploy, The word Bigfoot was coined in 1958, prior to that people reported a wildman or woman covered in hair. and there is plenty of evidence pointing to that fact. well said, & as john t pointed out,there are native american references from well before 1958 that point to a "bigfoot" type description even if the public didnt call it that (BF)until '58. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Ray, our learned friend Parnasses, describes ALL pre 1958 reports as Non-Bigfoot reports.........or human reports depending on his spin factor, after being taken to task for his indefensible comments. Do you really want to buy into this game? My logic is clear.Parnasses stated he considered all the pre 1958 reports to descriptions of humans. Your logical diversion, if based on the brotherhood of skeptical bailout is extremely lame! DUDE........Really......is that all you can offer? Medusa...??!! Please try to explain why some poor loincloth wearing Native Americans spent considerable manhours carving, chipping and weaving artifacts to support a "HUMAN" culture concurrent with theirs! Little cheap shot snippets won't count.................please provide at least the evidence you demand when banging the Skeptic drum.....................Dude!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'd like to recommend tirademan's CD and Chad Arment's The Historical Bigfoot for a wealth of pre-1958 articles on sightings (and shootings) of hairy "wildmen" (or "gorillas"). I find the articles from the 1880s to the turn of the century especially interesting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Ray, our learned friend Parnasses, describes ALL pre 1958 reports as Non-Bigfoot reports.........or human reports depending on his spin factor, after being taken to task for his indefensible comments. Do you really want to buy into this game? My logic is clear.Parnasses stated he considered all the pre 1958 reports to descriptions of humans. Your logical diversion, if based on the brotherhood of skeptical bailout is extremely lame! DUDE........Really......is that all you can offer? Medusa...??!! Please try to explain why some poor loincloth wearing Native Americans spent considerable manhours carving, chipping and weaving artifacts to support a "HUMAN" culture concurrent with theirs! Little cheap shot snippets won't count.................please provide at least the evidence you demand when banging the Skeptic drum.....................Dude!!!!!! Dude... I don't even own a car. No, Parn pointed out that all reports that predate 1958 lack the term 'bigfoot'. Or at least that's what I took away from what he had said. If you have one, by all means produce it and show him the error of his ways. However, YOU eventually brought up totem poles, stone carvings, and ceremonial dress as representations of bigfoot. I responded with carvings, flags, coat of arms, statues, paintings, emblems, tapestries, medals, mosaics, drawings, and writings as representations of the creatures known as Medusa, and the unicorn. Europeans spent considerable man hours carving, chipping, painting, sculpting, and weaving artifacts to represent Medusa and unicorns. John, that's YOUR logic I'm using. I mean c'mon, if Medusa wasn't real, why so many statues, carvings, coins, and whatnot that represent her? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 The name Bigfoot was only "popularized" in 1958.....It was used locally before that. It was? Was this documented? Who, when, where? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 It was? Was this documented? Who, when, where? RayG Maybe You missed my other thread? Gathering Information? Where I was very clear on folks who felt they needed more information should do their own research. It was enlightening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 This is great! So I can make up any bogus twaddle I like and not get called on it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 This is great! So I can make up any bogus twaddle I like and not get called on it? So I should have to spoon feed someone information? If someone has a problem with someone elses post the burden is on THEM to first, make sure it is incorrect, and secondly if it is such a problem, whatever they feel is correct. I would not have posted info that was not correct in the first place. The cheesy snark-fest ends here. It it not required of any poster to educate another. The burden is on each individual to self educate, come to the discussion with an INFORMED point of disention or additional supporting information. What has been passing for "debate" clearly isn't in reality. Thirdly...if posting here is merely an academic exercise in "calling other poster's out" it's ceased to achieve it's mission statement. (jmo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts