• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze said:
Huntster, we both agree that Kathy Moskowitz-Strain is a very pleasant individual but I'd like to know your thoughts on her statements to me regarding kushtaka.
Click to expand...

Not only is she a "very pleasant individual", but she is a professional anthropologist.

However, her profession isn't specific to SE Alaskan anthropology or Tlingit culture in particular.

Further, her education regarding SE Alaskan indigenous peoples was likely very general.

Having been "educated" myself, I can attest that knowledge and understanding of the Tlingit word "kushtaka" is going to be a very acute and specific study.

Even among those who study Alaskan aboriginal peoples, it is recognized that the term "kushtaka" can include both a biological creature (of humanoid appearance) as well as a spiritual being (as does the Koyukon term "nik’inla’eena,").

Some of the supposedly knowledgable people posting here antagonistic of sasquatchery are attributing spiritual powers to this creature.

So what's new?
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
Considering myself to be a "BF proponent", where do I fit in with regard to your analysis?
Click to expand...
You, LAL, Hairy Man, and Sweaty are the current proponents posting in this thread. Hairy Man and Sweaty have been proven to have been dishonest in their arguments. You and LAL have not. That is where you 'fit in'. You've never been dishonest, that is why I respect you the way I do. Finding Sweaty's inconsistencies was easy but I wished Kathy didn't disqualify her integrity here.
 
Hairy Man said she is a Native American. She is not. Hairy Man said kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are not the same and invented an evidence claim to support it. How is this not dishonest?
 
kitakaze said:
Hairy Man said she is a Native American. She is not.
Click to expand...

Sorry.

She might very well be (despite her physical appearance).

However, I doubt that she's Tlingit.

Hairy Man said kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are not the same and invented an evidence claim to support it. How is this not dishonest?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

I didn't read the post.
 
Huntster said:
Sorry.

She might very well be (despite her physical appearance).
Click to expand...
No, she's not. Her claim of being a Native American is horse$#!%. If she claimed to have a certain amount of Native American lineage that would be different but she is stating she is a Native American. This is indicitave of her handling of facts. You and I both know it even if we know all other references of her pleasantness seem to be true. Just review only my and her posts in the last three pages if you don't believe it. She's lying.
 
kitakaze said:
No, she's not. Her claim of being a Native American is horse$#!%. If she claimed to have a certain amount of Native American lineage that would be different but she is stating she is a Native American. This is indicitave of her handling of facts. You and I both know it even if we know all other references of her pleasantness seem to be true. Just review only my and her posts in the last three pages if you don't believe it. She's lying.
Click to expand...

Oh, boy...now you have really gone too far.

You are correct that I should have used the term "part," which is normally what I do (which is documented in many interviews that I have done including here). I did not realize that you were equating "Native American" with full blood (as there really are very few in the U.S. who are). I thought what you were suggesting was because my skin was light, I could have no Indian blood (hence why all my posts were directed to skin color). Had you at any time said, "don't you mean part?" I would have said yes. In fact, it was only reading over the last few pages that it dawn on me what your point was. We part natives are s l o w, so sue me...I have .10 after roof repairs.
 
Roof, hey?
It's foundation for me.
Must just be that time of the year.
I'll hoist a Pabst in your honor, Hairyman!
 
Hairy Man said:
Oh, boy...now you have really gone too far.

You are correct that I should have used the term "part," which is normally what I do (which is documented in many interviews that I have done including here). I did not realize that you were equating "Native American" with full blood (as there really are very few in the U.S. who are). I thought what you were suggesting was because my skin was light, I could have no Indian blood (hence why all my posts were directed to skin color). Had you at any time said, "don't you mean part?" I would have said yes. In fact, it was only reading over the last few pages that it dawn on me what your point was. We part natives are s l o w, so sue me...I have .10 after roof repairs.
Click to expand...
Hairy Man, you can continue with obfuscations on your lineage but your handling of facts is clear. You said you are Native American. One grandparent is a Choctaw member, one is English, one is German, and one is Scottish/Irish:boggled: ?

Are you ready to prove that kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are not the same?
 
I appreciate the thoughts desertyeti. The leak did damage to our newly remodeled bathroom...hence why I have been in a bad mood and not as observant as normal. As soon as it turns 5...I've got a corona waiting for me!
 
kitakaze said:
Hairy Man, you can continue with obfuscations on your lineage but your handling of facts is clear. You said you are Native American. One grandparent is a Choctaw member, one is English, one is German, and one is Scottish/Irish:boggled: ?
Click to expand...
You know, I'm married. You can stop trying to turn me on with big words.

kitakaze said:
Are you ready to prove that kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are not the same?
Click to expand...
Maybe, what's it worth to you? Is there any beer involved? Actually, I'll leave it up to Huntster to decide. If he says I'm wrong, I apologize. If you're wrong, I apologize.
 
kitakaze said:
..., and one is Scottish/Irish:boggled: ?
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia: "Scots-Irish in America have used the spelling Scotch-Irish almost exclusively since the 18th century, with the UK spelling becoming more-widely used in recent years. It is a term used to describe inhabitants of the USA and Canada of Ulster-Scots descent, who formed distinctive communities and had distinctive social characteristics. The term is sometimes qualified with American or Canadian, when it is necessary to distinguish between the two.

...

The Scots-Irish are descendants of the Ulster Scots immigrants who traveled to North America from Ulster in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Historically, they had settled the major part of Ulster province in northern Ireland. Most had previously lived in Scotland, usually in the Lowlands and Scottish Border country as well as northern England, and first migrating to Ulster in large numbers in the Hamilton & Montgomery Settlement of East Ulster which began in May 1606."
 
Hairy Man said:
You know, I'm married. You can stop trying to turn me on with big words.
Click to expand...
Sorry, not interested.
Hairy Man said:
Maybe, what's it worth to you? Is there any beer involved? Actually, I'll leave it up to Huntster to decide. If he says I'm wrong, I apologize. If you're wrong, I apologize.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. You said kushtaka and kooshdakhaa are separate with their own separate entries and meanings in a Tlingit dictionary and are not both the same. Prove it or be shown to be dishonest.
 
kitakaze said:
Actually, no. You said kushtaka and kooshdakhaa are separate with their own separate entries and meanings in a Tlingit dictionary and are not both the same. Prove it or be shown to be dishonest.
Click to expand...

So, actually no...meaning no beer? Disappointing.

Actually, I think you are the one being dishonest. At NO time did I say that the separate entries and meanings were from a Tlingit dictionary. What I stated was in post 2073:

Kooshdakhaa and Kushtaka are two separate creatures (or people). They sound similar because both have the word "otter" in them. But in Tlingit, they are separate stories with separate stories. What were discussing yesterday was Kushtaka.
Click to expand...

Then I stated in post 2206:

Nope, you are still wrong, but you do seem like a nice person. An easy answer would be to look in a Tlingit language dictionary, which are available, for both words and their definitions.
Click to expand...

What I said was that they were separate [characters] with separate stories, and that an easy way for you to prove me wrong was to look in a Tlingit dictionary for both words and see if their definitions were the same.

So, let me restate it again...at no time did I state that I looked in a Tlingit word/language dictionary for the words and their definitions. What I stated is that they each have different stories in Tlingit.
 
kitakaze said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry.

She might very well be (despite her physical appearance).
Click to expand...
No, she's not. Her claim of being a Native American is horse$#!%. If she claimed to have a certain amount of Native American lineage that would be different but she is stating she is a Native American.
Click to expand...

I assure you (much to my political shagrin), you may not be familiar with such in the United States.

I know many blond haired, blue eyed "Alaska Natives".

This is indicitave of her handling of facts.
Click to expand...

As is Alaska Native lineage.

You and I both know it even if we know all other references of her pleasantness seem to be true. Just review only my and her posts in the last three pages if you don't believe it. She's lying.
Click to expand...

She's made the claim elsewhere (another forum), and I never felt the need to challenge it.

I don't know why you do. It certainly has nothing to do with the topic.
 
William Parcher said:
It's never explained by P&G or Titmus what kind of sign Patty left after she exited the sand. She is presumably walking through forest at that time. Maybe they looked for smudges in the floor litter, or something. Titmus describes the sit down area, but not the kind of sign he was following to lead him to that spot. Titmus tells us he was able to do that 9 days later. I think I read that it rained more than once in that period.

It's inexplicable why P&G didn't describe or film the sign that they followed for 3.5 miles on horseback.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Laverty.. Though he found and cast Patty tracks ( supposedly ) within a few days of the filming, he didn't see any other evidence of the Squatch family that was supposed to be in the neighborhood ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom