Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Jodie]

The differences are not minimal, as I've gone to great length to explain in my earlier posts. The differences are absolutely what separates a "Bigfoot" from a "wild man." A wild man, as previously mentioned, spans everything from a description of a lower-class individual by the upper-class, something the Irish were depicted as being by the English, for instance, and a wild man was also a literal description of an "untamed" person, living beyond accepted society. Most European stories concerning wild men are generally embellished accounts of "uncouth savages." Embellishment is something people often overlook in old tales.

Take, for instance, the depictions of Jack the Ripper in the London press of the 19th century; he appeared as a phantom, a ghost, and a devil. These are clearly not things that people were serious about. Now, look at these supposed Australian, American, European, Asian "wild man" stories and ask yourself are they not more in line with shoddy newspaper sensation stories depicting people who are cast aside from accepted normality.

I can think of many examples where this is the case. Most of them appear in "Cryptozoology" books as supposed evidence of Bigfoot, especially the accounts concerning military personnel. Some soldiers find a wild man, hairy and dirty, he can't speak a word of their language, and he's subsequently imprisoned where he either dies in captivity after being "inspected" by the doctor, or escapes. These stories are all nonsense and many of them share literally the same details as I just described.

Wild man tales are nothing even remotely close to being similar to any Bigfoot tale. What people do is tweak those old tales to fit the modern idea of a Bigfoot.

Exactly, that's how legends and myths are created. The singular common attribute in all of these stories is about a being that isn't domesticated like we consider ourselves to be, someone that doesn't need or rely on the elements of a society to survive.

Then you have basic tales of giants, usually half-clothed and again nothing at all like "ape-men," then you have things like Woodwoses, mythical forest beings that are absolutely nothing like Bigfoot.

Once again, what it looks like is culturally dependent. How it acts or functions is universal making it an archetype of the human psyche.

In Europe, there was stories of men who were part animal, in France and Germany there were Werewolf stories, muddled with the reality of Berzerkers, who would wear the pelts of bears and wolves, spreading stories of "animal-men" murdering villagers. It goes on and on.

Again, it is the commonality of the untamed beast that is the point, not the individual descriptions which are minor or irrelevant to the message of the legend, that we can't survive without each other working as a team. The legend serves as a warning.

Like I said, when you believe in Bigfoot, you need to be able to point to its history in the world, and all of these totally unrelated pieces of fact, fiction, myth and legend serve as a fake history, tweaked to suit the needs of the believer.

Just like in any religion, they've taken stories and legends and made them literal. They missed the point altogether IMO.

Bigfoot as we know it, does not exist, therefore it has no actual history. It lends its history from the various histories of other legends.

It's not literally knowing what a bigfoot is that's important, it's understanding what bigfoot in it's various versions throughout time and place actually represents.

Here's a common statement from believers: "But in Asia they've talked about Ape-men for centuries..." No, they have not. The Yeti was never an ape-man until we made it one. The Yeti was a demon, a spirit, and you need only look at the ancient maps of Asia to see it. Likely a combination between their own superstitions about spirits, and the reality of dangerous animals such as bears.

I think that's irrelevant.

People even throw Native American tales in with Bigfoot lore, but when you actually look at those native tales, they describe nothing even remotely similar to a Bigfoot.

I think it's the same concept but in different cultural clothing.

Do hairy man tales exist pre-1950? Yes.
Are they in any way connected to Bigfoot tales post-1950? Not under scrutiny.

I disagree with you, I just gave you one example from south Mississippi from the 1920's/30's.

 

[Drewbot]

Jodi are you pushing what this guy is spewing?
https://questersite.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/the-man-bigfooters-love-to-hate/

 

[William Parcher]

Imagine a child running up on an unkempt man in a grape vineyard in a rural area. What do you think his mind is going to tell him that he's seeing?

Descending from most likely "mental explanation" to least.

Unkempt man
Hobo
Lunatic
Circus guy
Circus bear
Woolly Booger
Land walrus

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Yes it is.

Bigfoot was co-opted from the Yeti stories.

They saw the expeditions to Nepal, the Shipton print etc... and transplanted them here, where there was ripe market for such a creature.

And even then, the Yeti was a relatively recent myth itself, if we're talking about the Yeti as us Westerners know it. I honestly believe that the Asians were happy to allow us to take the Yeti myth and run with it. They almost always describe something that isn't an ape-man, but a supernatural demon of the mountain. Many Yeti myths were related to bears and other wild animals. I'm convinced that the Yeti was essentially anything deemed harmful or negative for people living in a mountain-range, even including bad weather, summed up on maps with a simple "monster" that doesn't really bare any resemblance to a Bigfoot or an ape-man.

Considering the fact that many tribes of people fought with one another around the world, it's no wonder we have tales of wild and vicious, untamed men.

 

[Jodie]

It's the same story.

 

[Jodie]

Descending from most likely "mental explanation" to least.

Unkempt man
Hobo
Lunatic
Circus guy
Circus bear
Woolly Booger
Land walrus

It was a rural area Parcher, they didn't see hobo's, lunatics, or have exposure to a circus, there were only 12 black bears remaining in Mississippi by 1932, and I'm not even going to address a land walrus.

 

[William Parcher]

And the child had never seen story books. He needed glasses too.

 

[Jodie]

No, they were sharecroppers with 11 kids in the family, there were no story books.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Exactly, that's how legends and myths are created. The singular common attribute in all of these stories is about a being that isn't domesticated like we consider ourselves to be, someone that doesn't need or rely on the elements of a society to survive.

But then how are these various stories connected to Bigfoot? How can you say that the differences are minimal when you're also agreeing that humans have long had stories concerning people who were different to them? Again, to use an earlier example, the Irish were long depicted as being apes by the English, but it was done in mockery, not because the English thought that the Irish were ape-men. Is this more proof of Bigfoot? How about people living away from accepted society? Are the differences between them and Bigfoot minimal? How about the Green men of the forest/Woodwoses? Are they only minimally different to modern tales of ape-men or are they just easily and fraudulently lumped together for the sake of it?

Once again, what it looks like is culturally dependent. How it acts or functions is universal making it an archetype of the human psyche.

What which looks like? No two tales from across the globe, across the ages, of two giants are much the same at all. The Cyclops being a fine example. Is the Cyclops a mere minor variation on the modern Bigfoot? Giants are an ancient belief, a Biblical belief. You can walk around in the UK and Europe and see many a "Giant's Passageway," or "Giant's Quarry," because people assumed such things could only be created by Godlike giants, how are these even remotely similar to Bigfoot?

Again, it is the commonality of the untamed beast that is the point, not the individual descriptions which are minor or irrelevant to the message of the legend, that we can't survive without each other working as a team. The legend serves as a warning.

So any myth pertaining to an untamed beast, be it human or animal, is connected to Bigfoot? That is exactly why we have such a silly belief as Bigfoot in the first place, Jodie, lol. "Minimal differences" in your opinion do away with everything that is vastly different between two unrelated legends and stories and connects them on one point alone: an untamed individual?

Just like in any religion, they've taken stories and legends and made them literal. They missed the point altogether IMO.

Yes, and it's born out of ignorance and a need for something unreal to be real. But missing the point is what you're doing when you say that the differences between such legends are minimal. A giant man does not a Bigfoot make. A hairy man does not a Bigfoot make. That's the real point that's being missed here.

It's not literally knowing what a bigfoot is that's important, it's understanding what bigfoot in it's various versions throughout time and place actually represents.

Well a Bigfoot literally isn't anything, Jodie. "Bigfoot" itself is a name born in the '50s. What people do is point to any old random tale involving a wild man, a hairy man or a giant, and attempt to connect it to the tale of the "Bigfoot" that was born in the '50s.

I think that's irrelevant.

That's interesting, because it shows you're not willing to see how these stories have been twisted to suit the modern version of Bigfoot that was clearly born in the '50s. How is it irrelevant when it shows precisely what I've been saying all along? That Bigfoot as we know it is a fabrication and a poorly derived myth born out of desperate attempts to connect it to unconnected stories?

I think it's the same concept but in different cultural clothing.

Is it the same concept? I've yet to see any actual Native legends that depict anything even remotely similar to a Bigfoot as we know it.

I disagree with you, I just gave you one example from south Mississippi from the 1920's/30's.

Can you list the similarities between the example you gave and the Bigfoot as we know it today? Or are you hinging everything on the fact that any story concerning a giant or a wild man is somehow connected to Bigfoot? As I've said previously, this is exactly the kind of thinking which enables people to connect unrelated stories and form silly beliefs. It's uneducated and ignorant.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

It's the same story.

What is? The Yeti? If so, no, no it is most assuredly not, Jodie.

 

[William Parcher]

No, they were sharecroppers with 11 kids in the family, there were no story books.

Twelve kids. You forgot to count the black one.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

It was a rural area Parcher, they didn't see hobo's, lunatics, or have exposure to a circus, there were only 12 black bears remaining in Mississippi by 1932, and I'm not even going to address a land walrus.

You're saying that people living in rural USA in the 1930s had no idea what a circus was?

A hobo, as we know the term today, can relate to literally anyone who wasn't a familiar feature in a given area; a person passing through, a person different to the rest, a genuine weird guy in the woods...You're saying these kinds of people didn't exist in the 20s and 30s in the USA? You're surely not trying to make out that 1920s/30s USA was akin to 18th century Lebanon, are you? In the 20s/30s we had trams and telephones.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Searching "Wooly Booger," I can't seem to find much in the way of any connection to Bigfoot. Can someone, preferably Jodie, give me some links that would prove differently?

Urban Dictionary has the closest definition to a Bigfoot, but as a form of insult, and clearly in jest.

Otherwise, I get a type of artificial fishing fly...

 

[Jodie]

But then how are these various stories connected to Bigfoot? How can you say that the differences are minimal when you're also agreeing that humans have long had stories concerning people who were different to them? Again, to use an earlier example, the Irish were long depicted as being apes by the English, but it was done in mockery, not because the English thought that the Irish were ape-men. Is this more proof of Bigfoot? How about people living away from accepted society? Are the differences between them and Bigfoot minimal? How about the Green men of the forest/Woodwoses? Are they only minimally different to modern tales of ape-men or are they just easily and fraudulently lumped together for the sake of it?

Because it's a concept, not an actual being, that is culturally driven.

What which looks like? No two tales from across the globe, across the ages, of two giants are much the same at all. The Cyclops being a fine example. Is the Cyclops a mere minor variation on the modern Bigfoot? Giants are an ancient belief, a Biblical belief. You can walk around in the UK and Europe and see many a "Giant's Passageway," or "Giant's Quarry," because people assumed such things could only be created by Godlike giants, how are these even remotely similar to Bigfoot?

Most of what your citing about the UK is after the influence of Christianity so it's really a bad example. The hairy man or wild man wasn't a giant. Bigfoot isn't either at what? Seven to nine feet according to the stories? It's big but I don't call that giant.

So any myth pertaining to an untamed beast, be it human or animal, is connected to Bigfoot? That is exactly why we have such a silly belief as Bigfoot in the first place, Jodie, lol. "Minimal differences" in your opinion do away with everything that is vastly different between two unrelated legends and stories and connects them on one point alone: an untamed individual?

Yeah, a bipedal hairy creature not living in a group or family unit, the rest is just cultural adaptation.

Yes, and it's born out of ignorance and a need for something unreal to be real. But missing the point is what you're doing when you say that the differences between such legends are minimal. A giant man does not a Bigfoot make. A hairy man does not a Bigfoot make. That's the real point that's being missed here.

So one legend doesn't lead to another? Yeah, it does, and you have a melting pot of cultures in the U.S. to make it so.

Well a Bigfoot literally isn't anything, Jodie. "Bigfoot" itself is a name born in the '50s. What people do is point to any old random tale involving a wild man, a hairy man or a giant, and attempt to connect it to the tale of the "Bigfoot" that was born in the '50s.

I believe I said that, that it's basically the same story over and over again.

That's interesting, because it shows you're not willing to see how these stories have been twisted to suit the modern version of Bigfoot that was clearly born in the '50s. How is it irrelevant when it shows precisely what I've been saying all along? That Bigfoot as we know it is a fabrication and a poorly derived myth born out of desperate attempts to connect it to unconnected stories?

The only thing I'm saying is that what is described as bigfoot was talked about before it got renamed bigfoot in the 1950's.

Is it the same concept? I've yet to see any actual Native legends that depict anything even remotely similar to a Bigfoot as we know it.

Can you list the similarities between the example you gave and the Bigfoot as we know it today? Or are you hinging everything on the fact that any story concerning a giant or a wild man is somehow connected to Bigfoot? As I've said previously, this is exactly the kind of thinking which enables people to connect unrelated stories and form silly beliefs. It's uneducated and ignorant.

Yeah, Dad said what he saw had dark hair all over, brown eyes, and that it was hunkered down when he first saw it. He said the creature started at him and swatted him on the butt as he ran away. When he brought my grandfather back to the vineyard they found bare prints in the dirt where the stakes were pulled up out of the ground. He must have gotten tangled in the vines escaping.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Because it's a concept, not an actual being, that is culturally driven.

No it isn't. From stories of Werewolves, Berzerkers, random tales of wild men, intentionally insulting views on uncouth people, random unrelated giants...and so on and so forth, how are these a concept that fits with the modern day Bigfoot? What we have here is a thousand different and mostly unrelated tales that people cling desperately and ignorantly to in order to push a belief in Bigfoot.

Most of what your citing about the UK is after the influence of Christianity so it's really a bad example. The hairy man or wild man wasn't a giant. Bigfoot isn't either at what? Seven to nine feet according to the stories? It's big but I don't call that giant.

Really? Can you tell me in what way anything I described has anything to do with Christianity? I'm interested to see you explain that odd comment.

I never said the hairy man was a giant, lol, you have apparently overlooked 90% of what I've posted, which explains the odd post re: Christianity.

My entire point was that hairy man tales have NOTHING to do with tales of giants, and neither hairy men nor giants have anything to do with Bigfoot.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Yeah, a bipedal hairy creature not living in a group or family unit, the rest is just cultural adaptation.

Yet again I'll remind you that the vast majority of these stories do not describe any "bipedal hairy creature." At this point you're not even naming examples of the bipedal hairy creatures you're describing. Many depictions of monsters showed them as being hairy, it was mostly an artists way of depicting the savageness of such a being, as opposed to a literal hairy monster. Witches were described as being hairy, as were trolls, as were various demons. Are these all lumped in with Bigfoot, too? If not, why not?

So one legend doesn't lead to another? Yeah, it does, and you have a melting pot of cultures in the U.S. to make it so.

No, not always, not at all. Most legends share a similar type of origin, and most legends are similar regardless, because we're all afraid of the same things: the unknown, the untamed, the dark, etc etc.

I believe I said that, that it's basically the same story over and over again.

It's not, though, as I've been explaining in every post I've made. It's an ignorant view of matters to say that it's all the same story, because under actual scrutiny, it isn't. Once again, this is how idiots make connections between unconnected things. This is why we have a Bigfoot in the first place.

The only thing I'm saying is that what is described as bigfoot was talked about before it got renamed bigfoot in the 1950's.

But it isn't, and I'm struggling to find any examples to prove your point.

Yeah, Dad said what he saw had dark hair all over, brown eyes, and that it was hunkered down when he first saw it. He said the creature started at him and swatted him on the butt as he ran away. When he brought my grandfather back to the vineyard they found bare prints in the dirt where the stakes were pulled up out of the ground. He must have gotten tangled in the vines escaping.

So, nothing remotely like a Bigfoot besides being hairy, brown, and hunkered down? This perfectly describes a troll, among a wide variety of other unrelated mythical creatures. Bigfoot is supposedly a massive ape-man, sloped forhead, huge feet, long arms, etc.

 

[Jodie]

Good Lord. Go right on and think it but the yeti, orang pendek, yowie, almasty, and yes, even woolly booger stories have been around forever. Even King Kong follows the same basic myth even though no one actually thinks that's real. But they all predate bigfoot, it's the same story just a different spin.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Good Lord. Go right on and think it but the yeti, orang pendek, yowie, almasty, and yes, even woolly booger stories have been around forever. Even King Kong follows the same basic myth even though no one actually thinks that's real. But they all predate bigfoot, it's the same story just a different spin.

You seem intent on putting forth a bunch of lies for an unknown reason, Jodie. I've no idea why you feel the need to do such a thing.

Orang Pendek is in no way associated with any Bigfoot tale, and again, I've seen nothing remotely in the way of "Woolly Booger" stories that didn't come from a "Crypto" book published in the last decade.

King Kong follows a "hairy-man/wild-man/Bigfoot" myth? Really? I don't think it does, tbh, like, not even a little...

"Same story, different spin," yeah, if you totally ignore everything I typed and stick your head in the sand, which is what you apparently seem intent on doing.

None of these myths share anything other than them being legends, myths and random bits of folklore. The only people who see any connections are the ones writing silly books that gullible people can purchase with their Mothman t-shirts from nonsense sites like Cryptomundo.

There are no links between a Woodwose and a wildman, and there are certainly no links between a folkloric "hobbit" from Indonesia and a supposed giant ape-man from the PNW. Likewise, the Yeti is in no way related to either, it was connected by people who desired to make money and spread silly stories for the sake of the press's need for stories. Again, the Yeti had nothing to do with ape-men until we decided it did in the mid-20th century.

Why you continue to ignore these facts and repeat the same tired half-truths is beyond me.

Also, the story your grandpa told could've easily been about a troll, or any other kind of hairy monster (many monsters in myth are described as hairy, for reasons I've mentioned earlier,) yet you're willing to give credence to a hairy-man story, and that is the exact problem I'm describing here: people are too willing to connect the unconnected to form a pattern that isn't there, for the sake of giving a history to a fictional creature that doesn't have, nor warrant one.

 

[William Parcher]

I've seen the term Woolly Booger before. I think it's hillbilly and is derived from Bogeyman. It's also used for a caterpillar and a fishing fly.

Here's a citation:

https://books.google.com/books?id=2...jKmxi6rUAhVNx2MKHR0VAZQ4ChDoAQgpMAU#v=onepage

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I've seen the term Woolly Booger before. I think it's hillbilly and is derived from Bogeyman. It's also used for a caterpillar and a fishing fly.

Here's a citation:

https://books.google.com/books?id=2...jKmxi6rUAhVNx2MKHR0VAZQ4ChDoAQgpMAU#v=onepage

Yeah, I mentioned the fishing-fly connection earlier, as that was the only description I could readily find when I searched "Woolly Booger" on Google.

I don't doubt that such a legend exists, but my objection is to the legend strictly describing a Bigfoot-type creature.

The only references to Bigfoot-like creatures I can find under "Woolly Booger" all come from recently published ghost/monster books, specifically one about Ohio.

There are definitely "wild/hairy-man" tales pre-1950s, but I disagree that they're the same types of stories as we get today that concern "Bigfoot." I think it's just easy for people to lump them all in the same pile with the intention of making the legend of Bigfoot seem more legit and historic.