198 replies to this topic

[scowl]

Gentleman, I believe this is the image you're talking about:



Supposedly this indisputable drawing of Bigfoot is in a cave in Northern California but I've been unable to verify that.

Now compare it to this ancient drawing in a place with absolutely no Bigfoot reports, Algeria:



You might get the impression that ancient people just liked to draw scary imaginary monsters on their cave walls.

[keninsc]

I see what you're saying however there are a number of them.

The unfortunate part of Native American culture is the lack of written language so they used pictograms to depict things and their means or rather the specific means could well have changed over  time. I can't tell you that's a Bigfoot, however according to the verbal account it is.......now we're back to the word of mouth thing again.

So it's a bit of a Mobius loop.

[evancj]

I think that is what they were referring to as well.

I'm seeing a standing bears in those pictographs not bigfoot. But I guess if you what to see bigfoot then that is what you will see.

Edited by evancj, 23 December 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

I think why people believe in bigfoot is because they have seen them. If you saw one would you believe? I have not seen one and hence i dont believe.

[Overdueleaf]

Professor Buzzkill, on 23 December 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

I think why people believe in bigfoot is because they have seen them. If you saw one would you believe? I have not seen one and hence i dont believe.

I would wager that say that not all people that believe in  bigfoot have seen him... people simply choose to believe in what they will based on whatever evidence they choose to except...the evidence for some doesnt have to stand up to the scrutiny and reasoning as it must for others... that is life

[Nathan Drake]

Clobhair-cean, on 23 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

What centuries? The bigfoot legend started in the 20s, in the heyday of made-up journalism and only really took up in the late fifties. before that, practically all there was were a wide-ranging bunch of Native American myths that, for some strange reason, are thought to be representing real animals. If that logic was applied, we would still be looking for harpies, satyrs and naiads around the Greek Islands, as all the native inhabitants of the region had stories about these creatures for centuries. Bigfooters should realise that folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore.

" Bigfooters should realise that folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore."

Really? And tell me, you know this how? Just because something is included in a group of peoples folklore or mythology, does not mean it does not exist. Several known and proven animals are also included among these types of cave paintings, carvings,etc. You have no basis to say what parts of it are true and what are not without any evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have is that there is no evidence to the contrary at this point. That is not a very strong argument to make the claims you did.

Edited by Nathan Drake, 23 December 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[Jeff Albertson]

Clobhair-cean, on 23 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Bigfooters should realise that folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore.

There are a few cryptids that thought to only exist in folklore, and myths and proving to be real a few are, the gorilla, giant squid, and King cheetah.

[Jeff Albertson]

scowl, on 23 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Gentleman, I believe this is the image you're talking about:



Supposedly this indisputable drawing of Bigfoot is in a cave in Northern California but I've been unable to verify that.

Now compare it to this ancient drawing in a place with absolutely no Bigfoot reports, Algeria:



You might get the impression that ancient people just liked to draw scary imaginary monsters on their cave walls.

That is not the drawing I am not aware of that one my self. I do believe the pictograph that are being refered to are of Kathy Moskowitte Strain work, she has also writting the book Giants, cannibals and monsters. The pictrograph that people commanly reference also include folklore and myths to go along with the pictrograph. Also one of the pictrograph also includes a large human looking foot, comanly associated with "bigfoot."

[scowl]

Jeff Albertson, on 23 December 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

There are a few cryptids that thought to only exist in folklore, and myths and proving to be real a few are, the gorilla, giant squid, and King cheetah.

And there are the Leviathan, the Harpies, the Chimera, the Sphinx, the Hydra, the Mormo, the Centaurs, the Karkinos, the Dragon, the Naiad, the Selkie, the Jenglot, the Hecatonchires, the Panis, the Leprechaun, the Ekek, the Tengu, and thousands of other cryptids in folklore and myths from around the world which are completely false.

That is why science doesn't rely on myth or legend. Anyone citing it as any degree of evidence will be laughed at.

[scowl]

Nathan Drake, on 23 December 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Really? And tell me, you know this how? Just because something is included in a group of peoples folklore or mythology, does not mean it does not exist.

It makes it very unlikely that it exists.

Quote

Several known and proven animals are also included among these types of cave paintings, carvings,etc. You have no basis to say what parts of it are true and what are not without any evidence to back it up.

The burden of proof is on those who say they do exist.

Quote

The only evidence you have is that there is no evidence to the contrary at this point. That is not a very strong argument to make the claims you did.

Soooo, there may be dragons, and serpents, and Centaurs, and Harpies, and multi-armed monsters roaming around, and until we can prove they don't exist, we should just assume they do exist?

I'm afraid you have science backwards.

[Jeff Albertson]

scowl, on 23 December 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

And there are the Leviathan, the Harpies, the Chimera, the Sphinx, the Hydra, the Mormo, the Centaurs, the Karkinos, the Dragon, the Naiad, the Selkie, the Jenglot, the Hecatonchires, the Panis, the Leprechaun, the Ekek, the Tengu, and thousands of other cryptids in folklore and myths from around the world which are completely false.

That is why science doesn't rely on myth or legend. Anyone citing it as any degree of evidence will be laughed at.

Science should not relay on myths alone some myths are based in reality we can determine which ones do. You can't say that all myths are false or those ones you mentied are false. So far to the best of our knowlege they seem false though.

[JGirl]

scowl, on 23 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Gentleman, I believe this is the image you're talking about:



Supposedly this indisputable drawing of Bigfoot is in a cave in Northern California but I've been unable to verify that.

this looks like a bear to me

[Nathan Drake]

scowl, on 23 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

It makes it very unlikely that it exists.



The burden of proof is on those who say they do exist.



Soooo, there may be dragons, and serpents, and Centaurs, and Harpies, and multi-armed monsters roaming around, and until we can prove they don't exist, we should just assume they do exist?

I'm afraid you have science backwards.

I do not have "science backwards" at all. I never claimed to have evidence of these other creatures, but I simply said their appearance in multiple cultures stories does not discredit their existence. The guy I responded to made the claim that they DON'T exist, there is no science to this, it is an opinion based only on the fact of what we have found and not found at this point, that is not science.

And you are putting words into my mouth like many people on this site seem to love to do, I never said you should "assume they do exist," but if you are claiming that you KNOW they do not you should have a better reason then "folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore" when many of the creatures in folklore are real known creatures, you can not make the claim all things found in folklore are ONLY a representation of folklore.

[Clobhair-cean]

Nathan Drake, on 23 December 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

" Bigfooters should realise that folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore."

Really? And tell me, you know this how? Just because something is included in a group of peoples folklore or mythology, does not mean it does not exist. Several known and proven animals are also included among these types of cave paintings, carvings,etc. You have no basis to say what parts of it are true and what are not without any evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have is that there is no evidence to the contrary at this point. That is not a very strong argument to make the claims you did.

Notice the word "accurate". What I'm saying is based on the general views of the science of folkloristics. While there are correlations between reality and folklore, you can't pick folkloric elements and use them as a proof for anything but folkloristic topics. That's what happens when reality and imagination mix. I did not say that no folklore is ever true, just that it's unusable to support statements about reality, especially about animals.

I've seen Kathy Strain being mentioned here, so we have something to start out on about the elusive bigfoot cave paintings. I've found this exquisitely referenced post that practically destroys her arguments about the Yokuts bigfoot. Here's the gist: She claims that the Yokuts people have a cave painting depicting a family of bigfoots and that they have a creation myth about these creatures. There are some issues with these claims. Firstly, there are no other bigfoot creation stories anywhere else in the West. Secondly, there are no other bigfoot cave paintings anywhere. The only source for the bigfoot creation stories are from Kathy Strain, there is no record of them anywhere outside her writings and bigfoot websites, even though the Yokuts legends are really well-documented. Furthermore, all the other scientific material written about the paintings suggests that they are of anything but bigfoot. Instead, they are evil spirits/bears/mountain lions/people. The only academic who seems to have reached the bigfoot conclusion is Kathy Strain. The Yokuts do have a "Hairy Man" in their myths, but just because something is hairy and walks on two feet that does not equate it with bigfoot, just look at Robin Williams.

So, there we have it. The cave paintings are not clear, but they are most probably not bigfoot.

[Nathan Drake]

scowl, on 23 December 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

And there are the Leviathan, the Harpies, the Chimera, the Sphinx, the Hydra, the Mormo, the Centaurs, the Karkinos, the Dragon, the Naiad, the Selkie, the Jenglot, the Hecatonchires, the Panis, the Leprechaun, the Ekek, the Tengu, and thousands of other cryptids in folklore and myths from around the world which are completely false.

That is why science doesn't rely on myth or legend. Anyone citing it as any degree of evidence will be laughed at.

Once again making claims you have no backing to other then you have not seen them or evidence of them so therefore it is fact they are "completely false."

Edited by Nathan Drake, 23 December 2012 - 09:34 PM.