Jump to content

Native American understandings


Midnight Owl

Recommended Posts

BFF Patron

There are a number of us on the forum (myself included)  who do have NA linage who have also had encounters.  In my case you would never know from looking because of my blond hair.   So BF would have no idea either and I reject that my NA heritage is a factor.        I doubt that the sample is large enough with forum members to conclude anything.     It would be interesting to do some sort of nation polling of NA to find out how many have experiences compared with the general population.    The Tribal Leaders in the Western tribes I have heard speak, say that the younger generation in general does not believe in many of the older traditions or legends, which include BF.  Many report changes of mind when they do have experiences.     Other factors may be at play, in that I would imagine that NA spend more time in the woods than the general population at large, hunting, and gathering wild berries which is traditional in many Western tribes.        Exposure certainly increases the likelihood of an encounter,   and hunters and berry pickers have more exposure than most with resulting sightings fairly common.     Hunters and berry pickers also spend more time off trail than recreational hikers.    The only other groups with a lot of time in the woods,  are loggers,  and we are unlikely to learn anything from them.    The last thing loggers want is to enable a discovery of an endangered species,   in woods they want to log. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-11-04 at 7:41 PM, norseman said:

 

... Humans....despite the opinion of the skeptical inquirer are excellent at observation. Hunters must discern age, sex and species of an animal in mere seconds. And then judge range, wind, obstacles and inclination and put a bullet in the vitals.....

 

 

Not only that, but they routinely report their observations to others. Would that be what is disparaged as "anecdotal?"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

Not only that, but they routinely report their observations to others. Would that be what is disparaged as "anecdotal?"

 

They routinely actually produce intact animal carcasses and provide clear, distinct, unmistakable photos / video of large mammalian species to bolster their anecdotal reports.

Edited by Incorrigible1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two "black panther" sightings in my family from the same general area in WV. Both times there were two people present and witnessed the same thing. 20 years apart...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

Not only that, but they routinely report their observations to others. Would that be what is disparaged as "anecdotal?"

 

Absolutely.....

 

If you walk into any bar with a "whopper that got away" story? Your gonna get ribbed mercilessly.

 

Happens all the time.

 

The only way to shut the hecklers up is to have the whopper in the back of the pickup!

 

Bigfoot is no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Absolutely.....

 

If you walk into any bar with a "whopper that got away" story? Your gonna get ribbed mercilessly.

 

Happens all the time.

 

The only way to shut the hecklers up is to have the whopper in the back of the pickup!

 

Bigfoot is no different.

 

My point was a little different. If I was out waiting for some game to pass, and I told my buddy that I saw a big buck in some nearby brush, he would probably attend to me. If he knew that I was level headed and experienced in the bush, he would accept it, anecdotal as it would be. I wouldn't need a carcass at that point. I know your issue is we need a body, but my point is that true anecdote is unremarkable, and we have survived millenia because of the usefulness of such communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Absolutely.....

 

If you walk into any bar with a "whopper that got away" story? Your gonna get ribbed mercilessly.

 

Happens all the time.

 

The only way to shut the hecklers up is to have the whopper in the back of the pickup!

 

Bigfoot is no different.

 

What are you waiting for?

 

When I hunt it is with a Browning 30-06 in semi auto. I haven't seen one of these things but from what I understand, I'm not sure I'd open up even with 5 rounds ready to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

 

What are you waiting for?

 

When I hunt it is with a Browning 30-06 in semi auto. I haven't seen one of these things but from what I understand, I'm not sure I'd open up even with 5 rounds ready to go.

 

A clear shot.

4 minutes ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

My point was a little different. If I was out waiting for some game to pass, and I told my buddy that I saw a big buck in some nearby brush, he would probably attend to me. If he knew that I was level headed and experienced in the bush, he would accept it, anecdotal as it would be. I wouldn't need a carcass at that point. I know your issue is we need a body, but my point is that true anecdote is unremarkable, and we have survived millenia because of the usefulness of such communication.

 

Kinda. If we were hunting partners and I told you I saw a green leprechaun in the bushes over there and just offered my word on it?

 

You would wonder what my coffee was spiked with that morning.

 

You wouldnt just take my word on it, nor should you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, norseman said:

Kinda. If we were hunting partners and I told you I saw a green leprechaun in the bushes over there and just offered my word on it?

 

By the same token though, if we were hunting partners and I knew you well enough to KNOW that you knew your bears? Then if you tell me that what you saw in the bush WASN'T a bear, and why, I probably would trust you and my questions WOULDN'T be about your coffee. And I also might ask what, if anything, do you want to do about it.   

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would have decided that question about shooting BFs before the hunt. If we were hunting bears, it 's a good idea to know what will be shot and what won't prior to the hunt. Know your partner. 

 

It's been stated BFs sometimes travel in hidden groups, and the group may not be real pleased if a small group of humans shot one of the bigfoot clan. Is this why some hunters are never found? BFRO has a report of a guide being ripped apart after shooting a BF. The Forest Service classified it as a bear mauling contrary to reports provided by those present. 

 

Maybe someone will bring in a sick and old bigfoot. This lucky event would prevent the loss of a BF that may be the clan's food provider.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, georgerm said:

Maybe someone will bring in a sick and old bigfoot. This lucky event would prevent the loss of a BF that may be the clan's food provider.

 

If it's already dead even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to those who replied to my post. Your comments were very enlightening…

 

 

On “tripping in the woods”:

 

Norse: Do people walk around in the woods hallicinating cryptic animals into existence? Heck no. Not without the help of magic shrooms!

 

Norse seems to be unaware (or is simply discounting the fact) that people have always claimed to have subjectively seen a wide variety of cryptic animals (amongst other things) that are not objectively there and that these experiences often occur while out in nature. Moreover, certain places do seem to favour certain “cryptic animals”. So, “tripping in the woods” can, does, and will continue to happen without the aid of psychotropic substances…

 

While Norse, personally, may not “walk around in the woods hallucinating cryptic animals” he has never actually seen Bigfoot for himself unlike the author of the article. Some people may not be able to see Bigfoot. So, rather than dismiss these insights out of hand it may well be worth at least considering a different perspective. It can’t hurt, can it?

 

Perception and reality don’t always match up. People CAN BE excellent at observation but, on the flip side, there are times when we can also be very bad at it (while thinking we are still excellent). How does one check the accuracy of any observation? Simply by comparing the subjective claim against the objective evidence and, as we all should know by now, Bigfoot doesn’t cut the mustard. Like it or not, AAWA offers a legitimate Native American’s perspective as to why that is so…

 

 

 

On Alyssa Adisi Waya Alexandria (AAWA) and her article:

 

MIB: It seems consistent with SOME Native American beliefs.

 

Norse: I think its a load of crap sold to people by skeptics and I do not find your post (ie her article) credible

 

SWWASAS pooh-poohed AAWA’s explanation as akin to fantasy (telekinesis) while OS railed against “skeptics” who biasedly overlooked critical evidence in favor of their personally under-questioned theory that the phenomenon is “entirely social” while, ironically, biasedly dismissing the contents of AAWA’a article in favour of his own under-questioned theory…

 

I hate to point out the obvious but AAWA is not a “skeptic” – she is a Native American brought up within her cultural traditions who has seen Bigfoot herself. The view presented is not mine, nor those of anyone connected with the skeptical community, but her own which related her own cultural insights into what Bigfoot actually is (which just so happens to be the topic of this discussion). AAWA is also clearly not saying that Bigfoot was “entirely social”…

 

I’d be interested to learn which Native American beliefs about Bigfoot are inconsistent with AAWA’s? Is anyone able to provide any links or references for further reading or most here simply relating what they believe Native Americans believe or what they once heard a Native American say?

 

 

On footprints, etc:

 

MIB: delusions and illusions do not leave castable footprints nor produce recordable vocalizations.

 

SWWASAS: I have yet to have it explained to me how an encounter that is the result of altered states, imagination, or hallucination can at the same time leave large footprints.     While altered states, imagination, and hallucination is always at play in the human mind, when an event leaves physical traces like footprints,  or broken off trees intended to frighten off the human,   only a ardent skeptic can conclude it is not a physical event.    

 

Norse provided a simple solution: Do they (people) lie or hoax others? Absolutely. MIB acknowledges there is no proof that Bigfoot made any alleged Bigfoot track (since there is no proof of Bigfoot)…

 

OS disagreed, stating that while most tracks CAN be explained by misidentification and hoaxing there are some (perhaps only a small percentage) that seem to defy those mundane explanations. That implies that, whether or not Bigfoot is a real creature, there is and has indeed been a massive social undertaking to fool others (combined with a social willingness to misperceive tracks in the name of Bigfoot) taking place across the globe and over a great span of years by a series of unconnected individuals. In his own unusual way, OS acknowledges the reality of that social phenomenon while at the same time ridiculing it and those nasty “skeptics” who support it. Fortunately for all of us, only OS is ostensibly able to discern the difference due to his secret (or should that be “$ekret”?) research…

 

However, this topic of discussion happens to be “Native American Understandings” so what do Native Americans have to say about Bigfoot tracks, etc.?

 

AAWA: “I can say I have seen many photos, hundreds of them, which are misidentified as Bigfoot or Little People prints when they are Bear and Raccoon. Yet, there are some prints and trackways which leave us scratching our heads. My instinct tells me, there is a real world explanation for them, as well.”

 

She seems to suggest that, in her experience, most supposed Bigfoot tracks are misidentified Bear tracks and racoon tracks misidentified as those of Little People (whatever they are). Of the few prints (again, perhaps only a small percentage) she/they* cannot readily identify they scratch their heads – she/they don’t know and, furthermore, she/they do not jump to conclusions. AAWA does not speculate further than “My instinct tells me, there is a real world explanation for them, as well” -- hinting at human fabrication…

 

* – AAWA uses the terms “us” and “we” which seems to refer to her people rather than just herself.

 

So, it seems that while AAWA would agree with MIB that “something” made them she would perhaps replace MIB’s Something-is-out-there with Something-is-going-on which is not quite the same thing…

 

SWWASAS’s assertion that “only a ardent skeptic can conclude it is not a physical event”, then, is obviously self-serving and incorrect. It is evident that at least some Native Americans have a very different understanding of the nature of the Bigfoot phenomenon to some of the more vocal proponents on this forum. Whether anyone here is actually interested in exactly what Native Americans actually have to say about the nature of Bigfoot, however, appears questionable…

 

But how to objectively identify suspicious prints? Nowadays, it is possible to extract DNA from footprints and other environmental samples (perhaps even the limbs of trees supposedly broken off by Bigfoot). AAWA is right not to speculate on suspicious tracks – if anyone really want to know what made any supposed fresh Bigfoot track they can get it eDNA tested (like the recent SASquatch Nests eDNA Study (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sasquatch-nests-edna-study-science#/). No results as yet but get enough samples tested and over time a clearer picture will surely emerge. The question is whether people really want to know or if they prefer their own particular brand of assumption-passed-off-as-fact…

 

I have not yet been able to find anything documented on Native American understandings of supposed Bigfoot vocalisations…

 

 

 

If Midnight Owl is still following this discussion then I’d be interested to learn his own opinion on AAWA’s insight on Bigfoot. How it is similar or how it differs from that of his own insights and/or perhaps whether it is something that he could/would be interested in following-up on…

 

Of course, we could always invite AAWA here to this forum for further insights and to answer questions…

 

Next week I will provide further other referenced quotes on this subject…

Edited by Night Walker
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not seeing you have any kind of overall picture here, Night Walker. 

 

But AAWA sure seems to. She sure seems to think that Bigfoot is not real. "My instinct tells me, there is a real world explanation for [tracks], as well”. Really? What "Native American Understanding" does complete mistrust of evidence point to?

 

AAWA may be Native American, but she's also human, and apparently, she's a human who wants to look like an "advanced", "modern" human. "Today, it is not acceptable to see the two worlds as one; inner and ordinary. We understand the differences." We do?????? Who is the "we" she is talking about? It is not I she's talking about; nor is it the thousands and thousands of people who "understand" that BF is a flesh-and-blood being with abilities that his cousin has forgotten how to use. 

 

By her own admission, AAWA is deviating from Native American understandings, in a way that is completely, head-shakingly sad. 

 

Worse, she is, in a very devious way, trying to look "sympathetic" to the idea of BF, while slamming people who actually know what they're talking about: 

 

"Who would believe that a 1000 lb creature which speaks telepathically, transforms into trees and teleports, actually exists in ordinary reality? Not you; not me. And I am pretty sure even “they” don’t believe it. To tell you, sadly, would end their notoriety and small pocket of fame. Even more sad is their next step; to have conferences based on their experiences or better, based on themselves, and how awesome they are that they can do these things or see these things or hear these things."

 

This person is slamming people for having a "different view" from hers. Slamming someone else is not.....persuasive. I would say, it is the exact opposite of persuasive.   

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...