But now we are post-phones everywhere, and into AI generated deep fakes. Did we have enough time with phones everywhere before the tech to make casually easy fakes?
Have you ever tried to whip out a cell phone and get a good picture of a wild animal before? I’ve got a handful of blur-blob bobcats and one spot where a mountain lion used to be that say it’s not easy.
There appear to be cryptids that are some variation on furry, smelly hominid on every continent. So, either there are several colonies of very stealthy Sasquatchoids, or some neurological or psychological effect causes that specific kind of hallucination, similar to night hags/night terrors.
Just folklore I think, originating from older times when Group B expanded into Group A’s territory, and their fashions confused each other.
Consider the humble Ghillie suit. Useful for hunting and stalking, particularly in areas relatively devoid of trees and tall bushes. They’re credited in origin to Scotland, but I can’t find a reliable date. But in practice they’re relatively straight forward, and needn’t be form fitting.
Where they were commonplace, a local might see someone stotting about, and see it for what it is. But, a visitor to the area might see it, freak out and assume the worst.
Which brings me on to a possible evolutionary origin of superstition. And it involves two primitive humans. Let’s call them Barry and Larry.
One day, Barry and Larry were coming home from hunting. They’d had some success, and needed to get back to cook their dinner.
Barry and Larry, on this journey, see a humped shape a couple of dozen feet to their left. Neither Barry nor Larry are entirely sure what it is.
Barry decides the best thing to do is go and give it a prod, find out what it is. Larry thinks that’s a stupid idea, because it could be a Bear. And having hunted such a beastie in the past, knows Bears aren’t especially fond of being prodded, and are unlikely to respond in a kind manner.
Larry continues on his way. No harm, no foul. He gets home and cooks his dinner and has a nice night’s sleep. Larry repeats that caution and goes on to have some kids, before dying at the ripe old age of 37, a proper elder of his tribe/clan/fam/gang/club/whatever.
But Barry is intent on the prod it and find out, walks up to it, and gives it said prod. At this point, it’s either nothing, like a hummock of dirt. Or it is indeed something, something big, nasty and vicious that has taken umbrage at the prodding. In the latter case? Let’s just say in the Human Race, Barry fell at the hurdle and the ref had to shoot him. Barry does not have children as a result. Barry’s foolhardy nature isn’t passed on.
The cautious survive, the incautious fail to survive with sufficient regularity that natural caution outweighs natural incaution in the populace’s favoured traits.
Overtime, Larry’s tale of Why Prodding Lumpy Things You Saw In The Gloom Is A Bloody Stupid Idea evolves in the telling. And because youngsters may see Bears being taken down on the hunt, they may start to see Bears as no biggie. The elders begin to embellish for effect, to stop the young from wandering off into the dark. Overtime that Vague Lump becomes a terrifying creature that only comes out at night, and has four legs, one of which is retractable so it can leap up at you better, instead of a mouth it’s got four arses, a magnetic tail and breathes poison. So don’t go wandering in the dark, young fella me lad.
Same for the weird noises at night. Ever heard Foxes making baby Foxes? It’s a horrific racket. Like someone is being murdered. Given for most of human existence the dark meant vicious predators who absolutely will go for you, it was likely a long, long time before anyone realise “oh hey, it’s just Foxes”. And in the meantime, it was Banshees or other supernatural terrors. Like the Hideous Streisand which can even shriek at you over the radio.
So. No. I don’t believe Bigfoot is a real creature. Rather it’s an odd encounter or two, used as a warning and alert which has mutated and evolved over time.
The human brain is wired for pattern recognition. Are those just strips of shadow, or a tiger in the tall grass? And it’s better to err on the side of caution, because those that don’t end up as tiger chow more often then those who do.
We are literally pre-disposed to see things that might be there.
(Not that there are not a lot of weird things out there, but for most there is a plausible, if less fun/romantic explanation)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have you ever tried to whip out a cell phone and get a good picture of a wild animal before? I’ve got a handful of blur-blob bobcats and one spot where a mountain lion used to be that say it’s not easy.
There appear to be cryptids that are some variation on furry, smelly hominid on every continent. So, either there are several colonies of very stealthy Sasquatchoids, or some neurological or psychological effect causes that specific kind of hallucination, similar to night hags/night terrors.
Not only does half the world carry an automated photo platform, but a big proportion have the camera active a lot of the time. Add to that surveillance systems, wildlife camera traps and suchlike, and the general reduction in wild space across the globe, and it just makes it really unlikely that such things exist.
Cryptids are only Cryptids until they’re not. And some have been proven to exist. Such as the Gorilla.
No. Really. Gorillas were once considered to be Cryptids. The Mountain Gorilla specifically.
I could say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there of course has to be a line to that rather trite claim.
Humans have been actively seeking out Bigfoot for decades now. And nothing has turned up that hasn’t been disproven as evidence. For example, fur samples that were laboratory tested, and shown to belong to a Pizzly Bear, in a range where we might reasonably expect a Pizzly Bear to be found.
But like a good Fortean, as a willing disbeliever I have to acknowledge that just because some stuff is proven wrong, or actively proven to be fraudulent? It doesn’t necessarily mean all reports are fraud.
Let’s consider the possibility of psychic abilities and clairvoyance and that. There are an awful lot of frauds. But thankfully we have folk continuing the excellent and noble work of James Randi in debunking the fraudsters. Like Uri Geller. Yeah go on sue me, you fake spoon bender.
But if someone could read minds or hear the thoughts of others? Maybe they’ve been kind of driven insane, because how would you even learn to turn that on and off? And if you did, fear of how others might treat you could be persuasive enough to keep your gift to yourself. And so I accept its possible such talented people do exist, although I can’t help but consider that to be incredibly unlikely.
I forgot where I saw it, and it's correlation not causation, but a recent study determined the more bears live in a given area of the United States, the more bigfoot sightings occur in that area.
Which brings me on to a possible evolutionary origin of superstition.
<snip>
The cautious survive, the incautious fail to survive with sufficient regularity that natural caution outweighs natural incaution in the populace’s favoured traits.
That evolutionary predisposition to false positives in pattern recognition has also been linked to the origins of religion.
Oh, and (regarding your second post) while yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, the correct time to believe in a proposition is after it's been demonstrated to be true. You can hedge your bets (just in case it is, in fact, a bear rustling in those bushes), sure, but there's a cost to being overly cautious, as well.
Wow! Love the responses to the question. It’s fascinating to hear what people’s thoughts on the matter are.
I see a huge amount of calm, measured reasoning and piercing logic on the matter and it seems we can all relax, there are no monsters out there ready to pounce.
Strange though, how these stories keep popping up huh? I mean, when you look at the vast array of characters who recount strange and troubling encounters with ‘something’ big… and hairy… that walks on two feet. They range from medical professionals, wildlife photographers, ambulance drivers, police officers, military personnel, hunters and even presidents (admittedly second hand in that instance, but a story that he held in some regard nonetheless)
We might say this isn’t strange at all given the aforementioned predisposition to ‘seeing things’ human beings possess; in particular when the human being in question is in a dark and hostile environment! That said, many of these stories come from people known to spend a lot of their time in just such environments, and often times with a level of character not prone to panic or flights of fancy.
These witnesses must all be mistaken, or mad, or liars then.
I’ve spoken to some of these very people, and maybe they are those things, but in truth I am not convinced that is the case.
I think something far more interesting is going on here than human predisposition to fantasy or some vague notion of the evolutionary utility of storytelling.
I think this is best demonstrated by the descriptions of these ‘hairy things’ themselves,
So let me ask you, when was the last time you really spent a decent, genuine amount of time actually looking into these types of reports?
Did you know, for instance, that Bigfoot is described (until a recent schism in the narrative) in many different ways from ‘large hairy ape thing’
For instance you get large hairy man, large hairy man with pointed ears, large hairy ape, large hairy ape with pointed dog like ears, large hairy ape with baboon like features and pointed ears, large hairy ape with dog legs, and so on.
The schism I’ve just previously mentioned happened probably 10 (ish) years ago and revolves around something now called ‘Dogman’
I shouldn’t need to describe to you all here what that is supposed to look like.
In truth, the choice and popularity of that name is interesting in and of itself because, as anyone who listens to descriptions of these encounters will become quickly aware, the obvious name would be something like… wolf man.
And it is here that I find myself genuinely fascinated in this topic. Why? Because what we have here is the resurgence of a legend that goes back to time immemorial. The idea of the werewolf.
The truth is we have all thought, and don’t deny it, as reasonable and enlightened members of the new secular and technologically advanced project of humanity that the monsters from days of old had been extinguished forever; exposed as phantoms of the imagination.
Yet here we are, in the modern world, with all our devices and cameras, witnessing the rebirth of a legend so old it’s hard to even fathom.
Like the creature itself the idea of it simply morphed to something more palatable following the revelations of the enlightenment. Instead of wolf on legs we got a primate, some distant ancestor that had remained hidden perhaps, but unquestionably (all witnesses insist) man like. The theory of evolution demanded any serious thinker do away with the preposterous idea of a walking wolf like man… so obligingly the wolf man became ape man. All parties were relieved, if we are to have legends, they are at least to be in keeping with academic trends.
Yet during all of this, through all the iterations and theories and speculations, one thing has remained consistent.
The hairy man like thing that walks in the woods at night, that watches people from the shadows, that peers into windows and vanishes without a trace…leaving only footprints. Large human like footprints. Footprints that suggest an elongated foot. A big foot.
Or perhaps a human foot after all, but one grotesquely altered, deformed. A foot that has swollen, and is growing in size, elongating and stretching into something else, something right out of our nightmares.
A breeding population of home grown big cats? Awesome, if true!
Yes I’ve been noticing this narrative increasing too. Does look like more and more people are accepting the idea of big cats roaming the UK. Once again, what are we to make of that if true? I mean where are the doubters in such a time of revelation? Don’t forget just how many people scoffed at the idea for decades. Don’t forget how many of those in positions of power encouraged that. I can think of a thousand similar examples of duplicity and small mindedness amongst supposed ‘educated’ classes.
What’s most interesting for me though is how the narrative almost always contains some dialectical understanding of power that implies a ‘conspiracy’. For instance, big cats are here therefore the ‘elites’ have been covering it up.
This is almost always total nonsense. Often these things are far more multilayered and complex.
Human understanding might well be shackled by implicit and hard wired bias towards pattern recognition; and yes such ingrained and habitual manufacturing of self delusion often produces less than favorable results, but of all the progenitors of myth and self deception I can think of none as pernicious as the all encompassing desire for power.
Power is facilitated and exercised throughout the spectrum of all and any who seek a pathological need for control. Big and small.
Other fun facts, did you know police in the UK receive many reports of large wolves and wolf like creatures every year? It’s true, and while many can be disregarded as mistaken identity or random escaped mutt, others are less easily dismissed.
Take the cross country mountain biker who became so shook by what he saw that he took to Facebook to warn his community members who might be in the area of the potential for a nasty encounter:
In truth, anything which could conceivably be kept as a pet could be turned out into the wild. Either by a callous owner, or weather damage to an enclosure.
One need only look at Pablo Escobar’s Hippos for some level of evidence to demonstrate the possibility.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In truth, anything which could conceivably be kept as a pet could be turned out into the wild. Either by a callous owner, or weather damage to an enclosure.
One need only look at Pablo Escobar’s Hippos for some level of evidence to demonstrate the possibility.
For sure! That Escobar was a character alright! Lol
The UK has had "big cat" sightings for years (its always some puma or panther in black) and its not an impossibility for some to have been let loose from zoos and collections, esp around WW2.
That said its again a world of super blurry images where there are and people in the dark seeing things move and getting creeped out.
It's also important to note that there are many people who, even if they live in the countryside, not out-doors people. They have a very limited pool of experiences seeing wild animals and identifying them. So when you mix in poor visibility conditions on top of that you can easily get people seeing a large dog or deer or even a fairly small animal and thinking its way bigger or something like a panther or beast. OR indeed a bear walking on hind legs for a moment becoming big-foot.
That's before you then layer on Bigfoot and such which pre-loads a person to start thinking like that. The idea of a wildcat in the UK or Bigfoot in the USA or a long necked monster in Loch Ness already makes your brain start to look for that pattern and fit what you see to it. Our brains are fiddly things and what we see is not "pure" its interpreted by the brain. This is why all those visual tricks and magical acts can work with people because it fools our interpretive part of our brain.
It's also very gullible - readily accepting the first bit of information on a given situation and taking longer to change from that initial perception. So if you "think" it was a wildcat for a splitsecond then it IS A wildcat until you get a lot of proof its not.
And this somewhat makes sense as a survival trait. If you think its going to kill you or be a risk then you sound the alarm/run/get defensive/etc.... Basically you do steps to increase your chance of survival. If it turns out it was nothing then you've wasted a bit of energy and time; if it WAS something dangerous then you've potentially survived where others didn't.
That's why when you get prey animals they can be way way more flighty than predators because for generations the ones that ran away survived and the ones that didn't had less chance of surviving. Of course there are limits; being too flighty isn't good either.
Overread wrote: Of course there are limits; being too flighty isn't good either.
Precisely my point, it isn’t exactly credible to argue we human beings arrived where we are by all imitating Grug Crood; quite the opposite I would think.
This is precisely what I mean by some ‘experts’ who selectively use various shabbily constructed arguments drawing from one or another school of evolutionary genetic theories (there are countless schools)
I find the term ‘schools’ personally gratifying to be honest; they indeed are acting liking schools. In the sense of fish that is; staying closely within their paradigms of ‘expertise’ so as habitually reinforce one truth or another between themselves. No doubt for survival and I would agree, but not in the way such social theorists themselves imagine.
Human beings are herd like creatures after all, and such instincts keep them safe from predators only in as much as it provides respite from a state of perpetual anxiety. Animals generally don’t reproduce well under such conditions; if equating humans to animals is your thing that is.
Anyway, as you point out, is is equally true to argue a spirit of curiousity and adventure is central to survival. More so perhaps, at least at certain junctures in time.
Perhaps the sporadic increases throughout the ages with these entities might indicate such junctures.
I believe Jacques Vallee once equated strange phenomenon to a somewhat similar notion. Seems credible to me, and is at least devoid of the lack of imagination I see present in too many places on these types of topics.
I guess that’s where Calculated Risks come into it.
To revisit my example? With Larry long gone, Barry figures a Bear or Bears with a taste for Longpig are more likely to be a problem. And so he organises hunting parties or whatever to try to reduce the number of Bears.
Once properly equipped and with some kind of strategy? Now you can set about prodding suspicious looking lumps, because the risk of doing so is suitably managed.
Get that right? And not only do you reduce the number of risky animals in the immediate vicinity, but you’re providing a huge amount of food and furs, all of which helps you and yours survive, have more kids, and pass those techniques on further.
I suspect it goes deeper, into an almost visceral instinct we have. Have you heard of the uncanny valley? Far more frightening to us than inhuman things, or human things, are things that are 'almost' human, just a bit off. It's why the Polar Express is nightmare fuel, but grotesque caricatures like Despicable Me are fine.
I've heard it theorized that it's a leftover survival trait from the days when humans weren't the only hominids roaming around, about the time homo sapiens was engaged in a successful war against neanderthals, and other demihumans. If you see a bear with mange, or one behaving in an odd fashion at a distance, and you aren't familiar with bears, I can easily see Bigfoot or dirty samsquantches being the best explanation. Think about seeing an animal run across the road a 100 yards away late at night. Was it a cat, bobcat, possum, raccoon, or what? Maybe you can identify it, and maybe you can't, but you're telling everybody whatever you thought it was the next day, and getting more certain each time you tell the story.
Heck, I've seen a fair number of homeless folks who I'd mistake for a cryptid in poor lighting in the woods.
Not to say there aren't unidentified species out there- but species that are unidentified, but rumored to exist, tend to leave remains or evidence behind. A large race of ape sized beings seems unlikely.
I've heard it theorized that it's a leftover survival trait from the days when humans weren't the only hominids roaming around, about the time homo sapiens was engaged in a successful war against neanderthals, and other demihumans.
I've heard that one too, but I don't think its the case. I don't think human brains from babies come pre-wired to recognise specific shapes as threatening. Some of that theory leans into hereditary memories/DNA memory and other elements that is often considered somewhat a fringe science.
Now it might well be elements of survival that have been evolved from combat with other hominids; but I suspect its just from ANY threat in the wild. It's dark; its late; your fatigued; your vision is honestly pretty darn rubbish in the dark and there's something moving over there. It's not moving how you expect things to move that you are familiar with. It's different, its uncanny, BE AFRAID is a very good reaction to have from a survival point of view. Your heart is beating faster; bloodflow is quickening; your body is tensing up and getting ready for a flight/fight situation.
Unfamiliar/different things being feared is very common - heck is the foundation of some elements of racism and that can be something a simple as a different shade of skin and slightly different facial structure/stature.
To revisit my example? With Larry long gone, Barry figures a Bear or Bears with a taste for Longpig are more likely to be a problem. And so he organises hunting parties or whatever to try to reduce the number of Bears.
Once properly equipped and with some kind of strategy? Now you can set about prodding suspicious looking lumps, because the risk of doing so is suitably managed.
Get that right? And not only do you reduce the number of risky animals in the immediate vicinity, but you’re providing a huge amount of food and furs, all of which helps you and yours survive, have more kids, and pass those techniques on further.
Let’s say I think your explanation for the persistent stories of what should be long forgotten legends permeating (actually increasing) in our modern technologically incredible world (universal pat on the back everyone) is valid… which I admit I don’t, then explain the following to me:
Here is a picture of a grizzly bear paw:
Does it make sense to you that, given that image, and the fact no lies are needed to prove the existence of this formidable creature, as ancient people would have been all too horribly aware, they instead needed to embellish its existence to provide FURTHER motivation to others not to poke large hairy things in the forest at night?
I for one am aware of how deeply mistaken and often stupid human beings can be, but I credit the people who survived in the wilderness of the ancient world with far more wisdom than that. In order to provide proof I give you… me… and everyone else reading this post.
If embellishments were made they were done so as a form of entertainment, or at best a way of drawing allegory to some deep metaphysical truth. I’d also include ritual in that equation; which of course we know to be a truism. Whoever said there is a correlation with this phenomenon to religion is most certainly right in my view; but again, probably not in the way they suspect.
I think the youngsters and elders of the ancient world knew full well what lurked in the dark of the forest and had become very adept at dealing with those dangers. I also think they would have been at pains to educate the young on each and every one of those creatures too. Furthermore, given the likelihood those youngsters would have known firsthand what bears, wolves and big cats could do to a human, I doubt much in the way of lies was needed to keep them motivated to stay out of vulnerable situations.
No, this theory falls short in my view.
That said, I do think the use of story and allegory has without doubt been an important tool for human psychological development and the preserving of wisdom.
Given the evidence shows we interbred with Neanderthals, I’m not sure how true the theory we actively wiped them out is anymore.
Out competed? Sure. But in nature terms, out competing doesn’t necessitate violence, structure or not.
For instance, if Homo Sapiens Sapiens proved the more adept hunters? That puts pressure on other hominids. Reduced game, reduced successful hunts. Reduced successful hunts, reduced food levels. Reduced food levels, reduced populace due to starvation, shorter life expectancy, fewer babies etc.
So wariness of strangers is quite possibly less about an actual “Them” such as Neanderthals, and more an awareness of one’s own clan/tribe/pack/whatever. Anyone unknown could indicate other clan/tribe/pack/whatever passing into or through your hunting grounds, regardless of exactly which species they may or may not be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In response to XvArcanevX.
A fair argument. But me looking at that Bear paw is an oddly poor metric. I’ve never seen a Bear outside of a Zoo. And the chances of me running into one in the UK are frankly zero, on account we did them all a dead some time ago. Same with Wolves.
But, in primitive times? A relative youth could be tricked into seeing Bears as a reduced threat, because he knows the Hunters of his village successfully hunt Bears all the time.
What the callow youth won’t appreciate though is why nobody hunts Bear in the dark. Or how much work and planning goes into a successful Bear hunt, or that such work and planning is what allows the hunt to be successful in the first place.
And so to ensure the youth lives long enough to learn the why? Stories are embellished and exaggerated. Down through the generations the beasties being described become purely fantastical. And nobody ever questions it, because nobody goes out in the dark for fear of said beastie. Anyone who did, probably wouldn’t return (ate off a bear or Wolves), and their fate put down to the beastie.
Children are really, really stupid. Even the brightest, most academic kiddo is quite the moron. Because they lack the life experience and knowledge us smelly hoomans garner over our lives.
Anecdote time!
When I was a kid, Stranger Danger was a weird one. Strangers were….dirty old men in a dirty Mack with a dirty hat. Visually obvious wrong’uns. I don’t know if I was just particularly thick in that regard, but the message was so heavy handed it lost itself. That a stranger is any adult you don’t know.
My Dad has a story that once upon a time, we were off having a picnic. Wee kid comes up to Dad, and asks “excuse me, are there any Strangers here?” or words to that effect. Dad points out “well, I’m a stranger?”. Kid rubs off shrieking. So whilst I accept I may have been curiously thick in that department, at least I wasn’t the only one.
Children are really, really stupid. Even the brightest, most academic kiddo is quite the moron. Because they lack the life experience and knowledge us smelly hoomans garner over our lives.
Sadly I couldn’t agree more on that point my man, but I do think that we are both more than likely viewing that matter in a way specific to our modern post industrial minds.
Where tribal, or even particularly rural people, are concerned however, things are a little different. The young are not viewed quite in the same way in most examples, and quite often they are employed (sadly) for tasks which most adults I know would quiver at the thought of performing.
In less bleak examples, many youngsters living in harsh environments are taught early on exaggeration and hysteria are not helpful attributes and can become downright hazardous if routinely deployed amongst small groups.
My Dad has a story that once upon a time, we were off having a picnic. Wee kid comes up to Dad, and asks “excuse me, are there any Strangers here?” or words to that effect. Dad points out “well, I’m a stranger?”. Kid rubs off shrieking. So whilst I accept I may have been curiously thick in that department, at least I wasn’t the only one.
Hahaha! I love that. You are right, kids in our day are unbelievably sensitive creatures.
I think it’s fair to assume the concept of childhood may have changed somewhat from ancient times; in some cases for the better and in some cases… perhaps not.
I think we’re veering a bit too close to P&R on this bit, so I’ll waffle more about the alleged supernatural.
I read a fascinating article in Fortean Times a few years back which pointed out the similarities between stories of Alien Abduction in the modern day, and Faerie Abductions in earlier times. I’ve tried to Google it a few times and not had much luck.
But rather than the contents of said article (which was well written, and not full of woo and credulity) it was the thought process it kicked off I really enjoyed.
If we can take the contents of the article as accurate, then clearly the people reporting to be abducted, be it by Fae or Aliens are experiencing something. Like a variant of Sleep Paralysis etc.
Vulcan wrote: I forgot where I saw it, and it's correlation not causation, but a recent study determined the more bears live in a given area of the United States, the more bigfoot sightings occur in that area.
To broaden this up into a general Fortean topics discussion, I love books like Jerome Clark’s Unexplained that categorize these experiences into patterns and explore them. Some are timeless, like Bigfoot, alien/faerie abductions, fish falls, weird smells/mad gassers, ghosts, the Oz factor, sea or lake monsters, black dogs, objects in the sky, and so on. Humans across many times and cultures seem to experience similar ‘events’ and then process them according to local expectation.
Then you have the really weird ones that occur in one big wave and then fade away, like Springheel Jack, Mothman, the Dover Demon, and such. Makes me wonder if something really unusual (physical or psychological) happened in those cases, that they didn’t result in the stock human “weird experiences”.
Nevelon wrote: But now we are post-phones everywhere, and into AI generated deep fakes. Did we have enough time with phones everywhere before the tech to make casually easy fakes?
this reminded me of the metal gear solid 2 ending cutscene. The choice of words I mean. Thank you for indirectly reminding me of that great scene
Vulcan wrote: I forgot where I saw it, and it's correlation not causation, but a recent study determined the more bears live in a given area of the United States, the more bigfoot sightings occur in that area.
This reminds me of a time when we were staying in Oregon. Each of us felt like we were being watched while hiking, so we went to the sporting goods store to get some bear spray and ammo for a pistol. In California, that feeling is always attributed to mountain lions. In Oregon, the lady at the store and two other people swore up and down it was Bigfoot. Local expectation or tourist baiting?
(It was a mountain Lion with two cubs. We saw her passing by the driveway two nights later.)
For ease of reference? Fortean is a term to describe a “willing disbeliever” when it comes to things like the supernatural.
That is, I’m open to things having a supernatural explanation - but first we need to be rigorous in ruling out natural explanations. And even then, acknowledging not knowing the answer currently doesn’t mean therefore the supernatural.
There’s a monthly magazine called Fortean Times devoted to the subject I’d highly recommend to the curious minded.
I think this thread is becoming more interesting than I expected, nice to see such fun and thoughtful discussion.
Regarding the similarities of modern UFO abduction cases to ancient tales of the faefolk; that was Jacques Vallee (the guy I mentioned in a previous post)
But as the talk is now entering the kind of areas I think are really worthwhile thinking over, that very gentleman felt strongly what human beings are experiencing here is something that appears to be very real but ‘deceptive’ in nature.
He hints at some kind of psychological manipulation at play.
How convenient it is then for much research into these matters to be funded by groups with an expertise in psychological warfare.
For instance, has anyone seen the excellent documentary ‘Mirage Men’? It’s a great example of this kind of thing.
I believe the idea is based around exploiting what is called ‘The Kantian Rift’. Basically, the fear of the great unknown provides a vacuum into which various entities can be inserted to inspire wonder or doubt among groups of believers etc
Well, skirting the fringe of conspiracy theories? It does make genuine, non-sinister sense that those who’s job it is to understand hooman beans and how that wrinkly grey thing works would be invested in understanding….what make that wrinkly grey thing work.
Otherwise they’d be pretty useless at their job.
It’s also a useful and beneficial discipline for disaster response. The more you understand about humans and their psychology, the better you can plan effective disaster relief, because you understand and can account for irrational actions in the face of adversity etc - and what things could be easily provided but aren’t immediately obvious and so on.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, skirting the fringe of conspiracy theories? It does make genuine, non-sinister sense that those who’s job it is to understand hooman beans and how that wrinkly grey thing works would be invested in understanding….what make that wrinkly grey thing work.
Otherwise they’d be pretty useless at their job.
It’s also a useful and beneficial discipline for disaster response. The more you understand about humans and their psychology, the better you can plan effective disaster relief, because you understand and can account for irrational actions in the face of adversity etc - and what things could be easily provided but aren’t immediately obvious and so on.
Haha. How diplomatically put.
I agree, for sure, that in order to gain quality ‘unpolluted’ data on hoomans might mean an imaginative use of the notion of informed consent, but in that case I’m not the only one skirting fringes…
Besides, if it was just something as mundane as the eggheads of our world I thought was behind all of this I wouldn’t be as interested. Like I’ve alluded to, it’s not half as innovative as social scientists and their brethren in the genetic branches of various mathematical fields seem to think it is to plant false beliefs in cultures in order to study public reaction, it’s actually as old as time.
No, in this instance, there is more than that going on.
When it comes to studying behaviour patterns, I’m not sure consent is actually necessary, very generally speaking.
If it’s just studying and analysing our behaviour in our natural habitat? No real harm done. Provided you blur my face and disguise my voice in video? I retain my anonymity.
But, if you’re engineering situations to see what happens? That would require consent.
I think I’d favour the former. The results then aren’t tainted by artifice. After all, if you tell me I’m going to be studied in a series of purposefully stressful situations and/or environments? You risk wonky results, Because I’m aware I’m being watched.
No. Not in a quantum physics way. Just a general way. I’ll be on guard one way or the other. Trying to spot what’s for real and what’s part of the plan.
But as I said? That’s not valid reasoning for deliberate interference in an unsuspecting spod’s day to day life.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: When it comes to studying behaviour patterns, I’m not sure consent is actually necessary, very generally speaking.
If it’s just studying and analysing our behaviour in our natural habitat? No real harm done. Provided you blur my face and disguise my voice in video? I retain my anonymity.
But, if you’re engineering situations to see what happens? That would require consent.
I think I’d favour the former. The results then aren’t tainted by artifice. After all, if you tell me I’m going to be studied in a series of purposefully stressful situations and/or environments? You risk wonky results, Because I’m aware I’m being watched.
No. Not in a quantum physics way. Just a general way. I’ll be on guard one way or the other. Trying to spot what’s for real and what’s part of the plan.
But as I said? That’s not valid reasoning for deliberate interference in an unsuspecting spod’s day to day life.
Seems solid reasoning to me. The effect Air Force Intelligence officers have had on certain people’s lives by covertly encouraging false belief of alien technology has been demonstrably negative for sure (see the documentary I mentioned for one sorry example)
I feel in one sense we’re all unsuspecting spods though; even the brainiac unsuspecting spods. Lol
It’s a good thing to contemplate really. Encourages humility.
Superintelligence doesn’t require our consent to exist.
As I say about almost all Supernatural and Cryptids. They are not real, but it is a lot more fun to pretend they are.
Ocean and sea going Cryptids I am much more inclined to "believe" than others like the Dinosaur in the Congo, Sasquatch/Yeti, and even Phantom Kangaroos in cities.
Gitzbitah wrote: I suspect it goes deeper, into an almost visceral instinct we have.
Fear of the unknown in earlier societies, mutated into fear that 'yes, life is that banal' in other societies (including modern ones). Some people violent resist the idea that humans can have all the answers, so they're constantly looking for an 'out there' explanation for perfectly mundane things. It makes them feel important, brushing up against the Unreal, in a way that their 9-5 day job and coming home to burgers, beer and 3 hours of television... doesn't.
A psychology study of people who want to believe might be enlightening, but while Fox Mulder was a pop culture icon for a while, he was both a terrible scientist and a terrible FBI agent.
Fear of the unknown in earlier societies, mutated into fear that 'yes, life is that banal' in other societies (including modern ones). Some people violent resist the idea that humans can have all the answers, so they're constantly looking for an 'out there' explanation for perfectly mundane things. It makes them feel important, brushing up against the Unreal, in a way that their 9-5 day job and coming home to burgers, beer and 3 hours of television... doesn't.
I’m not really sure I agree with you here.
A ‘fear that life is universally banal everywhere’ says far more about the capacity of a person’s imagination than it does the existence of supernatural phenomenon. It’s a description of an attitude and not much more really.
I’m also fairly certain that somebody who wishes to ‘feel important’ has a million ways to achieve this that don’t involve embarrassing themselves by submitting their observations to the ridicule of peers who ‘have all the answers’ (which is also an attitude and not a fact, and a very telling one at that)
Then of course there is the fact our scientific paradigm has become over represented by the religious fundamentalism of scientism; which is not the same thing as science at all and more a radical ideology of psychotic nihilism.
These bored people, some of whom I’ve spoken too in private, are also often not very excited at all by their experiences. I’d use words like ‘traumatized’, ‘disturbed’ or ‘unsettled’ to describe them. Often, they are reluctant to talk with anybody at all, for reasons that should be pretty apparent by now.
Of course there are liars and charlatans, but seeking attention is the exact opposite agenda in many (not all) cases.
I can relate to the broad idea you are trying to convey, but I think this view misrepresents the phenomenon.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Scabby, hungry, mangey Bear fresh out of hibernation would certainly be quite the sight.
I do wish we hoomans would hibernate. Whilst Spring, Summer and Autumn are delightful in the UK, Winter is sodding miserable.
Honestly, they don't even have to be mangey. Black bears especially look like a human in a fursuit, and often walk on their back legs to investigate things.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Scabby, hungry, mangey Bear fresh out of hibernation would certainly be quite the sight.
I do wish we hoomans would hibernate. Whilst Spring, Summer and Autumn are delightful in the UK, Winter is sodding miserable.
Honestly, they don't even have to be mangey. Black bears especially look like a human in a fursuit, and often walk on their back legs to investigate things.
There’s a few videos online of them doing this over great distances; there was one bear who did it exclusively due to some condition I can’t remember, kind of sad to watch really.
No doubt this behavior is responsible for countless ‘Bigfoot’ sightings.
We also can’t write off simple economics. Please note I’m not knocking that. But a local Cryptid can be quite the tourist draw, bringing money to the area.
Room and board, cafes, restaurant, nature trails, local museums etc.
Provided it’s all a bit of fun, I don’t see the harm.
I wanted to add; from what we know of the intelligence community and their interest in and connections to the ‘supernatural’; much of the alleged ‘research’ is undertaken in order to direct outcomes within a broader paradigm of worldview building.
For instance, efforts made to encourage mystical visions of the Virgin Mother and other ‘miracles’ that bolster religious attitudes in locations thought to be at risk of socialism/communism during the Cold War era. Theatrical use of superstition surrounding ‘Cryptid’ creatures has also been employed by the military in operations where manipulating local superstition yields tactical advantages.
Modern uses of these types of doctrines are likely deemed useful in order to encourage faith/discussion/acceptance around technocratic models of post-humanism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: We also can’t write off simple economics. Please note I’m not knocking that. But a local Cryptid can be quite the tourist draw, bringing money to the area.
Room and board, cafes, restaurant, nature trails, local museums etc.
Provided it’s all a bit of fun, I don’t see the harm.
Almost certainly true too! Good point.
Loch Ness does this every so often, to good effect!
I'm on the fence about Bigfoot. I really want to believe, as a world with Bigfoot is a whole lot more interesting than a world without them.
In a world where we have just in the last couple years discovered a new whale species it is possible.
As for catching and/or taking pictures of one? I live in a semi-rural area of western Iowa. Mountain Lions are rare here, but there is definitely a small breeding population. They aren't common enough to make us worry about letting small children run wild outside, but they are around. Every year someone will post picture of a footprint they find on a hiking trail. About every other year one gets killed on the highway. I've literally never seen one in the wild though, and I spend a good amount of time outside at dusk/dawn, prime Mountain Lion roaming periods.
And what about the area Squatches are supposed to inhabit? Much of it makes western Iowa look like a metropolis in comparison. There might not be a single human within 200 miles of you and with heavy forresting. Add that to an animal that is both reclusive and with great-ape levels of intelligence and relative coloristic camouflage and it very well might not be an easy animal to find. A group of Japanese soldiers after WWII ended stayed hidden for 30 years on an island with a relatively high population density.
We also have to consider the possibility that Bigfoot at one time WAS real, but is now an extinct species.
Deep sea creatures of large size are easier to hide because vast areas of the ocean are unexplored and not easily accessible to us. The pressures and darkness of some of the deepest places make them exceptionally difficult to explore.
However land is a different matter. Whilst there are regions that are difficult to explore or are isolated from advanced civilisations, those regions are often remote; isolated and not visited all that often if at all.
Even then many of the species in those regions that are totally new are those which have limited mobility options - often being smaller species or very niche survivalists.
Bigfoot instead roams areas where people already are and have been for generations. It's a very large mammal and today we have cameras everywhere. Phones, drones, cars, plants, helicopters and more. The chances for a larger mammalian species to hide in such an environment is very limited.
Where you see new species of larger creatures in regions where people are active, its often less that the individual animals were unknown and more that a known population is now being split into two distinct classified groups. Often through things like DNA studies. Even then you can get debate in the literature as to if they really are distinct enough to quality as two separate subspecies.
So could Bigfoot be real - its not impossible. However the odds are heavy stacked against Bigfoot in much the same way they are stacked against the Loch Ness Monster.
Where people have lived for generations? My understanding is Bigfoot is not encountered in towns, but on hunting trails or hiking paths near campgrounds. And these are far, far from the population centers. This isn’t England or even Europe we’re talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: What if bigfoot is like Aliens? Multi-dimensional beings visiting our world
I love this hypothesis. All the wild things people claim to see can’t all exist on this earth. But if reality is thin in places…
Fear of the unknown in earlier societies, mutated into fear that 'yes, life is that banal' in other societies (including modern ones). Some people violent resist the idea that humans can have all the answers, so they're constantly looking for an 'out there' explanation for perfectly mundane things. It makes them feel important, brushing up against the Unreal, in a way that their 9-5 day job and coming home to burgers, beer and 3 hours of television... doesn't.
I’m not really sure I agree with you here.
A ‘fear that life is universally banal everywhere’ says far more about the capacity of a person’s imagination than it does the existence of supernatural phenomenon. It’s a description of an attitude and not much more really.
I’m also fairly certain that somebody who wishes to ‘feel important’ has a million ways to achieve this that don’t involve embarrassing themselves by submitting their observations to the ridicule of peers who ‘have all the answers’ (which is also an attitude and not a fact, and a very telling one at that)
People constantly embarrass themselves. Routinely now, on camera, filming themselves for views and clicks. In a world where tiktok and reddit exists (particularly r/IamtheMainCharacter), you'll never convince me that a subset of people won't do anything at all for attention, no matter how negative and ridicule-inducing it might be.
Then of course there is the fact our scientific paradigm has become over represented by the religious fundamentalism of scientism; which is not the same thing as science at all and more a radical ideology of psychotic nihilism.
The most famous of course is that photo. Well. This one.
By today’s standards it grainy and in poor focus. But it was seemingly taken on film in 1967, so fair enough on the quality.
It seems nobody has firmly confirmed or debunked it. But we cannot ignore nor deny they were in the area….filming a mockumentary type movie. On Bigfoot. Awfully, awfully convenient the big fella stopped by for a cameo, eh? Oh, and they’d spent the preceding months, by their own admission, trying to raise funding to continue filming said mockumentary. Which isn’t at all suspicious, is it.
Then there are footprints. Some evidence points to at least some being faked. But some doesn’t mean therefore all. It does suggest it though, but again can’t be taken as truly conclusive.
The fossil record. Whilst incomplete (and expected to be incomplete) there’s seemingly nothing we might consider ancestral to such a creature.
Of course, other than the fossil record a single film being faked doesn’t disprove the existence of Bigfoot. Anymore than a film like Interstellar is proof the ISS is a hoax and there’s a firmament up there because space is also fake and the earth is flat and there’s an ice wall which They don’t want anyone to know about because reasons and the Antarctic Treaty means nobody is allowed there ever and it’s guarded by a combined military of all the signatory nature no not that Antarctic Treaty which is easily readable online the other secret one the [insert racial boogeyman of your choice] don’t want you know about but only Crazy Dave and his Tinfoil Daisies know about.
I would like to throw one argument against the "nothing in the fossile record" argument. For the longest time we thought there were only two branches of modern human evolution ever, and that we were solely from one branch and that Neanderthals died out. It wasn't until genetic testing that we learned that most humans have some Neanderthal in them.
Then we learned there was a third branch, Denisovians. We have very, very little in the fossil record about them, and we know more about them through unexplained gaps in modern human genetics.
Add to that there there was likely at least a forth modern human species that contributed to our modern society that we know even less about.
At one point in the not-so-distant past humans were on the decline in population, almost to extinction. There were less than 10,000 of us on the planet, mostly geologically isolated. Could a similar fate have fallen on Bigfoot?
Perhaps Squatch is just an isolationist former NBA player with a severe wolfman syndrome.
Well that’s a tricky one. Because the fossil record isn’t complete, on account various conditions are required for fossilisation. So any species which largely lived snd died in a small area unfavourable to preservation is not going to be detected.
The interesting thing is so far as I’m aware (not an archaeologist, I’d position myself on the lower left slope of dunning Kruger, exploring the foothills) no bipedal hominids are believed to have been furry in the way of Bigfoot?
Even Lucy is at least depicted as having body hair rather than fur. Now, because im happy here in the foothills I have to assume that’s the result of an informed decision, but I accept it could also be artistic flair etc.
By and large, the absence of fossils does not disprove the existence of anything. The conditions that lead to fossilization is literally one in a million, if not even worse. And erosion in all its forms destroyed millions of fossils before we even evolved and created paleontology.
I, too, am very curious as to when, where, why, and how humanity lost it's fur in the course of our evolution. Our closest surviving relatives - chimpanzees - have fur.
Hippos and cetaceans lost their fur as they adapted to aquatic lives, but (as far as I know) there's no evidence elephants did the same between the evolution of the African and Asian elephants and the very furry Mastodon and Wooly Mammoth.
"tis a very curious thing, and I'm not aware of any scientifically satisfactory explanations thus far.
Not every species will be in the fossil record. But, from those that are? We can track changes over the course of time, and make educated assumptions as to when certain traits were developed, or indeed lost.
So for Whales? We may have fossils over ancestor species where fur is evident, but by the next ancestor in the record, it’s gone.
Applying what we know about fur loss from other species, some idea of when it happened can be come to.
But my point here, which admittedly I think I did fudge, is that at least since Lucy, there’s no evidence of furred bipedal apes as Bigfoot is posited to be. Indeed I don’t think there’s any evidence of indigenous great apes in what is now North America.
Primates, yes. But no Apes. Which rather questions where Bigfoot, if indeed it is real and a hominid or great ape, actually came from evolutionary speaking.
Cursory googling shows all known Apes evolved and exist in central Africa, until us smelly hoomans and related hominids went for a wander.
Well, camels are originally a North American animal. It only got introduced to Asia with the Alaskan land bridge. At that time a lot of animals developed heavier fur, and also species gigantism.
If Bigfoot, hypothetically, was real I'd assume it was a great ape. But what if it wasn't? What if that bipedal nature is just a fluke of convergent evolution? For all we know the damned thing is a large mutant ground sloth.
Thing is? We know where Camels evolved from the fossil record.
Could it be a Sloth or similar? Sure, that’s a possibility. But again, being bipedal is super rare and requires adaptation from quadrupedal, such as a locking knee and a change to the shape of the hip bone.
With seemingly no fossil or other remains to suggest that change began to manifest in another species? That’s a super long shot.
I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.
ZergSmasher wrote: I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.
To quote Hooper in Jaws “I got that beat”
I didn’t realize there was ‘frowning’ on religious talk here. I’m shocked, I’m new around these parts but this place has been such a wonderful experience so far and the people by and large seem genuine and intelligent. It’s a sad thing indeed for me to learn of this.
Ah well, I’ll try to skirt around too ‘controversial’ a topic as their being purpose to existence then and be clear about what Bigfoot, if it exists, is and is not.
These conclusions are based on a decent amount of knowledge on the topic and personal experience talking to both witnesses of the phenomenon and one or two involved in on the ground data gathering.
1. Whatever ‘Bigfoot’ may or may not be, it is categorically NOT a primate. The experiences of witnesses to this phenomenon are describing something FAR stranger than that. There are many other compelling and logical reasons this is the case including but not limited to strange lights just before or after a sighting, interference with electrical equipment, inconsistent description of phenotype and seemingly supernatural traits and abilities.
For an example of this see the description offered by Joby Ogwyn in his retelling of an encounter with a supposed ‘Yeti’ (a creature often assumed to be a type of ‘Bigfoot’)
2. ‘Bigfoot’ presents opportunities for research into social psychology. It is crystal clear to anyone who has spent any time carefully thinking about this topic that there is a connection with this phenomenon and various public/private ‘research’ programs. In fact, the recent shenanigans surrounding the Skinwalker Ranch debacle which inspired UFO sensationalism in the New York Post was due to the leaked information surrounding funding for research into not JUST UFOs (or whatever they call them these days), but also werewolves and some kind of mutant beaver creatures. Yes, this actually happened.
In the above example we learn of the ‘shock’ and ‘embarrassment’ everyone felt that such money had been poured into this ‘research’, but if you don’t see the angle here, well, I have a bridge I can sell you.
It seems intelligence services have a history of employing tactics that exploit the ‘fear of the unknown’ and it is clear this plays a huge part in much of this puzzle.
3. Bigfoot is profitable. The most repeated truism, that some people lie and stage hoaxes, is also a factor that adds to muddy the waters here. Furthermore, the very best of these hoaxers happen to be entertainment studios; who provide ample resources for those who wish to sensationalize facts for a tasty paycheck. At some point these things take on a life of their own in popular culture that has nothing to do with the experiences and events of genuine eyewitnesses. Harry and the Hendersons remains a fun film though.
4. Bigfoot is not friendly. For the most part the overwhelming amount of testimony indicates a terrifying and traumatic event with all the expected psychological damage that accompanies such things.
So what is Bigfoot… no idea. Could be any number of things, or none of them. The point is, at least in my mind, that it is a phenomenon that persists into the modern world with even greater vigor as our technology increases; a fact that would seem at first glance counterintuitive.
Whatever this all might mean I feel strongly that, at its heart, this is a mixture of real world meddling and … something else.
That something else is deceptive in nature as best as I can see. And I’ll leave it at that.
Searching for Cryptids can help engage ley people with the scientific method, showing how we go about identifying, finding and categorising new animals.
Because whilst they rarely make headlines, new species are being described all the time. This ranges from separating one species into two, and the finding of previously entirely unrecorded species.
Whether Bigfoot is real or not? Cryptids, when as with all things not taken to extremes, are if nothing else a fun “What If?”. If some eccentric folk want to spend their riches looking for them, that’s their business and decision. And as covered before, the supposed homes of such beasties can attract jobs and income through tourism.
ZergSmasher wrote: I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.
To quote Hooper in Jaws “I got that beat”
I didn’t realize there was ‘frowning’ on religious talk here. I’m shocked, I’m new around these parts but this place has been such a wonderful experience so far and the people by and large seem genuine and intelligent. It’s a sad thing indeed for me to learn of this.
I'm not sure exactly what ZergSmasher is referencing here. I've not seen much, if any, negativity towards religious beliefs in general, assuming bringing them up in the first place is relevant to the thread. However, in a thread about the existence or not of a creature, we're dealing with matters of fact. Any theory anyone puts forward should be scrutinised using the same criteria, whether it's based on published scientific studies, religious faith, pseudo-scientific ideas, plain old bad science, or gut feelings. I don't think there's anything particularly special about disputing a theory based on faith versus one based on gut feeling or common sense". The burden of proof remains the same regardless of the source of the idea. Religious beliefs don' get a free pass from having to be justified and well-argued, just like any other claim.
As far as cryptids go, it's interesting to note how the media can affect what is reported and generally believed. The earliest sighting of a Loch Ness monster, for example, was by a local over a hundred years ago that claimed to see something more closely resembling a large crocodile than the now "traditional" idea of Nessie. Alien abductions didn't tend to describe small grey figures with large heads and black eyes until 1965, after which time they've become by far the most common description, likely thanks to media exposure. I suspect there's a feedback loop in place here. If we assume some portion of testimonies are bogus (some might say it's as high as 100%), you're more likely to base your made-up claim on something people are familiar with. Even if your claim isn't just a flat-out lie, you can be heavily influenced by what the common belief might be. This goes back tot he discussion about humans being good at pattern recognition, and those patterns sometimes being wrong.
Another element is the way the brain interprets information. We aren't computers that just record 100% pure data about the world around us; we interpret what we see.
The brain looks to decode what it sees to spot patterns and shapes it recognises/knows of. This makes sense from a survival point of view; if you think it looks like there's a lion skulking in the long grass and the shape "kind of looks like one" then its best to think it IS a lion and kick in all those flight/fight elements.
This is why you can get people who feel and see ghosts in a house, but you take in computers, cameras and so forth and you don't see nor record any of it. I'd wager a bunch of the paranormal experiences and feelings people get is simply the brain trying to decode the environment and trying to fit those elements to things it thinks are there. So someone who really believes in ghosts isn't "seeing things" their brain is openly trying to find the ghosts and put them together from the information around them.
Regarding the religious bent on these phenomenon; I just made the assumption Zerg was providing a friendly warning those kinds of points of view aren’t welcome here (possibly in anticipation of debates getting a little too heated or some such political reason)
I appreciated the heads up, but if he was being overly cautious, I’ll make a mental note. I can see it was coming from a place of kindness which is typical of the users here in my experience so far.
To digress though, it’s true we have to deal with the evidence, or lack thereof, nonetheless.
Both the previous comments have pointed out the tricky nature of human perception in these matters, and the variables involved, interestingly Jacques Vallee has written extensively on exactly that issue and posits something called a ‘control system’ hypothesis.
As far as I can tell he believes these phenomenon may represents the manipulation of consciousness by some ‘super intelligent’ force native to our environment. He’s loathe to be more specific, but in the past he has used the words ‘demonic’
Recently that has shifted to something more ‘scientific’ sounding and he uses words like ‘inter dimensional’.
I’ll say this, one thing you are both absolutely right about here is that whilst the words to describe it might change over time, the phenomenon itself certainly doesn’t.
On ghosts? I have a, well I suppose you can call it a head canon, on that.
The planet has a magnetic field. And our brains operate via electrical impulses.
What if a death can, in the right circumstances, leave some kind of imprint on the magnetic field. And when a living brain in a certain emotional state encounters that disruption, it causes the living brain to pick up on it in some way, and so “see” things that aren’t actually there.
I absolutely cannot prove this, and wouldn’t even know where to begin trying to. And there’s more supposition in there than the Bumgrapes Ward at the World’s Largest And Most Populated Mammy’s Smiles Hospital.
But it’s a fun thought for RPG type games. A way to explain something allegedly supernatural.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On ghosts? I have a, well I suppose you can call it a head canon, on that.
The planet has a magnetic field. And our brains operate via electrical impulses.
What if a death can, in the right circumstances, leave some kind of imprint on the magnetic field. And when a living brain in a certain emotional state encounters that disruption, it causes the living brain to pick up on it in some way, and so “see” things that aren’t actually there.
I absolutely cannot prove this, and wouldn’t even know where to begin trying to. And there’s more supposition in there than the Bumgrapes Ward at the World’s Largest And Most Populated Mammy’s Smiles Hospital.
But it’s a fun thought for RPG type games. A way to explain something allegedly supernatural.
Certainly sounds compelling enough and, on the face it, there are the necessary ‘science’ based referents… but like you say, it’s ultimately a fun theory.
I have always thought of ghosts as something similar to what you describe here to be fair.
I for sure am open to the idea that ‘something’ might be tampering with our perceptions; I mean human beings are pretty adept at doing that at it is… what a ‘superinteliigence’ might be capable of… well that does give one pause for thought.
The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it.
So whilst the words around it and the understanding of it might change with time and more study; its something that can be a fact and theory in science.
Once you start to step outside of that structure into the paranormal and so forth then you hit issues where anyone can be correct because there's often little to no proof being given. Only interpretations and ideas; but no evidence. Or if there is evidence its often an interpretation of fact and most often only very select facts interpreted very specific ways. Rather than a more comprehensive review of all the facts and such.
It's a little like how Flat Earthers will grasp one bit of (sometimes incorrect) evidence that to them proves the world is flat; but which goes against all the other established facts and supporting evidence.
Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)
Regarding the religious bent on these phenomenon; I just made the assumption Zerg was providing a friendly warning those kinds of points of view aren’t welcome here (possibly in anticipation of debates getting a little too heated or some such political reason)
I appreciated the heads up, but if he was being overly cautious, I’ll make a mental note. I can see it was coming from a place of kindness which is typical of the users here in my experience so far.
The OT forum has a big warning thread, currently right above this one (as its stickied):
ATTENTION: There ARE RULES in the Off-Topic forum, including no political or religious discussion!
Overread wrote: The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it
I hear ya, but human consciousness is not ‘the brain’ in my view.
Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)
Also, I agree, that this is an excellent description of materialist reductionism. I’m not alone, so would every serious thinker of the enlightenment. The position always reduces to absurdity and solipsism.
We have to be serious here… the phenomenon we are talking about DOES leave evidence. The way we interpret that evidence must necessarily conform to the scientific method, but that does not mean the scientific method itself is currently able to explain it.
There are countless examples of compelling tracks being left behind etc.
Overread wrote: The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it.
So whilst the words around it and the understanding of it might change with time and more study; its something that can be a fact and theory in science.
Once you start to step outside of that structure into the paranormal and so forth then you hit issues where anyone can be correct because there's often little to no proof being given. Only interpretations and ideas; but no evidence. Or if there is evidence its often an interpretation of fact and most often only very select facts interpreted very specific ways. Rather than a more comprehensive review of all the facts and such.
It's a little like how Flat Earthers will grasp one bit of (sometimes incorrect) evidence that to them proves the world is flat; but which goes against all the other established facts and supporting evidence.
Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)
Professor Dave on the YouTubes has some marvellous Flerf debunks, absolutely eviscerating their claims. Including pointing that none of their “models” explain more than a single observation at a time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don’t agree footprints/trails are evidence for Bigfoot.
At best, they’re simply evidence something or someone passed that way.
It’s like Crop Circles. Where the Hoaxers showed in excruciating detail how they faked them, only for nutters to decide the Hoaxers were in fact the hoax, because that better fit their world view.
The same thing happens with any change in scientific understanding. The conspiracy theorist will seize upon that, claiming “if we am wrong about X, I are write about Y”. And neatly ignore that it was science correcting science. New information, evidence, observation etc which is able to explain a given thing better than the previous one.
This is of course compounded by lazy, sensationalist journalism. Not to mention that as the sciences advance, what’s being studied becomes ever more complex and niche, to the point where there may be only a relative handful of persons with the existing knowledge and education able to offer a proper Peer Review. And so we mere plebs have zero chance of wrapping our heads around it.
A lot of Flerfers are commenting on science they time and again demonstrate they just don’t understand. And many seem unwilling or unable to think in three dimensions. Not to mention that like all “good” conspiracy theories, you need to keep adding more and more and more conspiracies to it to paper over the yawning cracks in your arguments.
For instance? And I’m not joking? Space am the fake. The are dome over erf. Fings wot fly east to west on the right hand side of the Flerf am does a Pac-Man and just appear on left hand. Because magics. Drivel about the Antarctic Treaty, which does not say what Flerf claims it says, so presumably it’s another Antarctic Treaty we don’t know because it goes to a different school. In Canada. The denial of gravity as a force, claiming its all just density and buoyancy, completely ignoring that doesn’t explain why objects drop, and don’t stack the other way up etc.
Overread wrote: The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it.
So whilst the words around it and the understanding of it might change with time and more study; its something that can be a fact and theory in science.
Once you start to step outside of that structure into the paranormal and so forth then you hit issues where anyone can be correct because there's often little to no proof being given. Only interpretations and ideas; but no evidence. Or if there is evidence its often an interpretation of fact and most often only very select facts interpreted very specific ways. Rather than a more comprehensive review of all the facts and such.
It's a little like how Flat Earthers will grasp one bit of (sometimes incorrect) evidence that to them proves the world is flat; but which goes against all the other established facts and supporting evidence.
Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)
Professor Dave on the YouTubes has some marvellous Flerf debunks, absolutely eviscerating their claims. Including pointing that none of their “models” explain more than a single observation at a time.
Honestly when one looks at Flat Earthers you see a few patterns
1) Those at the "top" end who are often earning money/influence/prestige from the whole affair who have a very clear driver toward promoting it however they can because it continues to provide them with income and so forth.
2) Those who have conspiracy beliefs and issues with authority and "the man/science/big firms" and so forth. Flat Earth is likely one of a myriad of beliefs they've got which is based on the foundation of no trust in positions of power or authority as they see it.
3) Those who simply want to be part of a community and have value and support from that community. This seems to be a greater part of the lower end of the believers. For them the Earth being Flat isn't the major part; its the whole social side that they are missing out on and haven't managed to find another community to welcome them in and accept them and support them.
4) A large number of groups 2 and 3 who have generally poor education. They might even have outright failed parts or large elements of education in the past (and have a chip on their shoulder about it too). OR their education only achieves a basic level of understanding with no foundation to really grow from.
Note this doesn't meant they are stupid - indeed some of the proofs they have are when they take super simplified school theories and extrapolate from them into larger facts and hit barriers/problems because a good portion of school level science is grossly simplified from higher levels. So if you never understand that or never step into some of the higher levels, you can indeed have understandings about the world that are wonky when you try to apply them at large.
I would suspect you can find some of these same patterns with Bigfoot belief groups as well.
Indeed even in regular hobby groups like wargaming you can see some of the very same patterns. Those who are present purely for the community side more than the game itself; those who don't paint or who have really bad game tactics who still regularly take part but don't grow or learn more. Those who learned bits of things here and there and have spotty understanding and so forth. Then at the top end you've got influencers and youtubers and so forth doing channels and earning money from showing painting tutorials; through to firms making models supporting it and so forth.
This is of course compounded by lazy, sensationalist journalism. Not to mention that as the sciences advance, what’s being studied becomes ever more complex and niche, to the point where there may be only a relative handful of persons with the existing knowledge and education able to offer a proper Peer Review. And so we mere plebs have zero chance of wrapping our heads around it.
It doesn't help that the "news" is often a decade or more behind the general level of current scientific understanding when it reports on things. Also you very often get a big splash of news when they announce something new; only for there to be very quiet or no follow-up when further studies either prove the original claim wrong or find other facts etc.... So you can certainly get a view of science that's way behind and out of touch with the reality of science. Add that up and some big discoveries later on suddenly appear to be pulled out of thin air or not believable because all the connecting dots from A to D were basically missing in the media reporting.
They are indeed evidence ‘something’ or ‘someone’ passed that way.
They also, in many cases, indicate that that ‘something’ or ‘someone’ was extraordinarily large and has very unusual physiological characteristics indeed.
There are more than enough qualified experts in those fields to seek out if anyone wishes to leave the realm of speculation behind due to their superior ‘logical’ reasoning. The fact that isn’t known though does lead me to some unflattering conclusions about the quality of that reasoning, but we’ll say no more.
I think the fact that someone can, with any degree of seriousness, suggest that there are no reasons to doubt our ‘institutions’ integrity on matters of truth; well I have no words to describe how much of a world of learning and excitement awaits you in the extensively documented annuls of history.
XvArcanevX wrote: They are indeed evidence ‘something’ or ‘someone’ passed that way.
They also, in many cases, indicate that that ‘something’ or ‘someone’ was extraordinarily large and has very unusual physiological characteristics indeed.
More accurately, they indicate something large was placed into the ground to make an imprint. That something could be a misidentified bear footprint, or a hoaxer using any number of techniques to generate such an imprint, or bigfoot itself. Even if bigfoot exists, it still doesn't rule out the first two possibilities.
There are more than enough qualified experts in those fields to seek out if anyone wishes to leave the realm of speculation behind due to their superior ‘logical’ reasoning. The fact that isn’t known though does lead me to some unflattering conclusions about the quality of that reasoning, but we’ll say no more.
I'd actually like you to say some more on this, because I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at. Are you saying we're seeking out the wrong experts, or that the experts are all wrong?
Also don't forget tracking is something that isn't really a major educational element in modern times. So a lot of people in that field are self taught with little to no peer reviewing or such going on.
It's thus very easy to have experts in that field who really don't know much at all. Who could be making all kinds of miss identifications and mistakes and reporting on them and muddying the waters.
That is not to say there are not skilled trackers in the world nor ways to be trained; just that its a field where there can be a lot of very easy miss information. Heck you can even have generations of trackers trained father to son who have still been making some blunders that get passed along; but because they've been able to land a buck every season that's been enough of a measure of success for them to keep going.
XvArcanevX wrote: They are indeed evidence ‘something’ or ‘someone’ passed that way.
They also, in many cases, indicate that that ‘something’ or ‘someone’ was extraordinarily large and has very unusual physiological characteristics indeed.
More accurately, they indicate something large was placed into the ground to make an imprint. That something could be a misidentified bear footprint, or a hoaxer using any number of techniques to generate such an imprint, or bigfoot itself. Even if bigfoot exists, it still doesn't rule out the first two possibilities.
I accept that probably explains many of these footprints, not all. That is my point really. The facts are the facts, we can’t cherry pick the fact that biases exist in both the positive and negative case, which again, was my point. Thanks for being upfront about that though, it’s does a good deal to foster goodwill in such a discussion.
There are more than enough qualified experts in those fields to seek out if anyone wishes to leave the realm of speculation behind due to their superior ‘logical’ reasoning. The fact that isn’t known though does lead me to some unflattering conclusions about the quality of that reasoning, but we’ll say no more.
Slipspace wrote:I'd actually like you to say some more on this, because I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at. Are you saying we're seeking out the wrong experts, or that the experts are all wrong?
I’m saying that, like the above example, the matter is subject to debate amongst various qualified ‘experts’. Depending on what your preferred discipline in science might be you will find adequately qualified and experienced individuals who argue compelling reasons exist to suspect ‘something’ is going on that is either unusual or lacking scientific catergorisation (at least currently)
Now, it might be true to say ‘most’ don’t think ‘x’ or ‘y’ …
But the reasons vary, some are sincere, some are uninterested, some are ignorant and some are most certainly aware of how a number of their peers might react if they express a public interest. The point really is this… that some qualified ‘experts’ think it’s nonsense, and some do not… both have a variety of opinions.
In this same vein, it is disingenuous to level the accusation that all people claiming to have had inexplicable encounters with such things are either mad or liars, and it is equally unfair to tar those who remain open minded to the possibility of something unusual going on as being intellectually inept or gullible.
I can assure you neither of those views hold much water.
Am I saying that insulated communities forged around false beliefs do not exist, of course not, they exist everywhere. No, what I am saying, once again, is that not all examples of this phenomenon easily fit into such clearly demarcated subcultures.
The truth is one who dismisses this phenomenon out of hand is just as likely to ironically be a victim of a kind of social bias as any ‘Finding Bigfoot’ fan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Also don't forget tracking is something that isn't really a major educational element in modern times. So a lot of people in that field are self taught with little to no peer reviewing or such going on.
It's thus very easy to have experts in that field who really don't know much at all. Who could be making all kinds of miss identifications and mistakes and reporting on them and muddying the waters.
That is not to say there are not skilled trackers in the world nor ways to be trained; just that its a field where there can be a lot of very easy miss information. Heck you can even have generations of trackers trained father to son who have still been making some blunders that get passed along; but because they've been able to land a buck every season that's been enough of a measure of success for them to keep going.
Again I agree heartily, but as becomes common with this topic, examples exist everywhere to the contrary… Steve Isdahl for example.
Back to interesting accounts… this one is another description bearing a ‘dog like’ quality.
Many years ago this same video was called ‘Idaho Bigfoot Encounter’… but has been reuploaded and renamed.
The manner in which a lot of these ‘Bigfoot’ encounters end up being far more ‘dog’ like really interests me. Many of them are certainly bears, but, once again, not all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just realized nobody has yet posited that some sightings might be down to excessive consumption of the spice melange!
I’m saying that, like the above example, the matter is subject to debate amongst various qualified ‘experts’. Depending on what your preferred discipline in science might be you will find adequately qualified and experienced individuals who argue compelling reasons exist to suspect ‘something’ is going on that is either unusual or lacking scientific catergorisation (at least currently)
Now, it might be true to say ‘most’ don’t think ‘x’ or ‘y’ …
But the reasons vary, some are sincere, some are uninterested, some are ignorant and some are most certainly aware of how a number of their peers might react if they express a public interest. The point really is this… that some qualified ‘experts’ think it’s nonsense, and some do not… both have a variety of opinions.
Do they? While I'm sure you can find someone with qualifications who agrees with pretty much any theory under the sun, I think the vast weight of evidence in this case points towards most, if not all, cryptids either not existing at all, or simply being misidentified known species. The UK, for example, has had many sightings of "very large cats" that turned out to be regular sized panthers, or similar, escaped from private collections.
In this same vein, it is disingenuous to level the accusation that all people claiming to have had inexplicable encounters with such things are either mad or liars, and it is equally unfair to tar those who remain open minded to the possibility of something unusual going on as being intellectually inept or gullible.
I don't think the majority of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other cryptid or mythological creature are liars or mentally unstable. I suspect they are simply mistaken. There are likely subconscious biases in many people's perceptions that might cause them to think they saw bigfoot when they see something not readily identifiable in locations where bigfoot is thought to live.
The truth is one who dismisses this phenomenon out of hand is just as likely to ironically be a victim of a kind of social bias as any ‘Finding Bigfoot’ fan.
That's true. However, I think that's being disingenuous about why people might dismiss this phenomenon. I don't think most people dismiss it "out of hand". I think they have likely weighed the evidence and possibilities and come to the conclusion it's more likely than not that bigfoot doesn't exist. I'd say that's the opposite of "out of hand". Characterising it as such is dangerously close to poisoning the well - implying those who don't believe in bigfoot are simply too closed minded to consider the possibility is a good way to shut down genuine debate.
I just realized nobody has yet posited that some sightings might be down to excessive consumption of the spice melange!
Should be obvious!
Haha Though I think I did mention drink/drugs earlier
Along with other things like fatigue, poor visibility and so forth which can impact a persons perception of the world around them.
You've also got things like mental instability to consider. Through old age; substance abuse; cancers and other elements that can all cause a person's perception of reality and interpretation of it to get drastically altered. Some of these might not become apparent for years.
Finally there's TV*. I honestly lay a lot of the modern supernatural beliefs at the foot of TV for spreading and keeping them in people's minds. Go back to a certain era in TV and every show had sci-fi elements like psychics, cryptids, etc... all presented in otherwise sane, serious series as "well who knows it might be true" and "it really was true" contexts. This was done a lot; heck even more modern series will play with those themes from time to time. So basically even though we know many TV shows are not real; they still perpetuate untruths along similar lines of thinking; which reinforces it within people's minds.
It's the same as how you get tropes in TV like cutting the coloured wires in bombs which would make many lay people who are not bomb disposal experts, assume that all bombs are colour-coded.
This is where real world science steps in. If you had real Big Foot creatures you'd expect that more concentrated attention would result in the use of more trail and trap cameras that would increase in logging recordings and that those could be mapped to show areas of activity and inactivity. You'd expect to find droppings that could be studied to prove genetic information; you'd expect tracks and trails that could be followed for far enough etc....
This is where a lot of cryptid stuff starts to wither because the more you focus actual study and scientific method upon it; the less evidence you actually find, not more. Or rather the more you find that is disproven as being fake/mistaken.
Loch Ness Monster is a great example of where concentrated study and intense attention didn't reveal anything abnormal. To where most of the defence has to rely on "Well every time they did a sonar pass or such the creature had to be hiding". You end up with a body of evidence that boldly defends the position that the cryptid is VERY unlikely to actually exist at all. Even the studies by dedicated die hard fans end up without any real additional quantifiable, repeatable proof.
So yes there could be a Bigfoot. However right now all the evidence and proof and studies point to a fairly strong "no there isn't".
*Who remembers Harry and the Hendersons TV series and film!?
The existence of the legend also primes people to interpret oddities they might perceive as “well, I guess it was Bigfoot!”.
Personal example? Not far from me is the village of Pluckley. Reputedly the most haunted village in England. Naturally I’ve spent the odd Halloween night there.
Not much really happened on those occasions, apart from one visit to Screaming Woods, where hauntings are claimed to occur. There were three of us in the car. On the right hand side was me in the driver’s seat. I weigh around 16, 17 stone. I may have been lighter then (a good 14 years ago. Blimey time flies). In the passenger seat was Gemma, and behind her Laurence. Their combined weight probably around 22 stone or so at a genuinely conservative guess.
We’d parked on a grass verge to go exploring. Didn’t see much, but when we piled back into the car and drove off? The steering didn’t feel right. Like the weight was on my side, not theirs. It really felt like something was pressing down on the driver’s side.
At first I put it down to some mud on the tyres. But those tyres had been on the tarmac, not the verge. And despite being October, I don’t recall it being very wet.
Primed as we were, this freaked us out a bit. Soon as we decided “that’s plenty, home time now!” I swear the steering went back to normal.
Now as ever, I do not present this as “therefore it are am the spoop”. But it goes to show when you’re primed for a given experience? You may default to it. I’ve given this story before on similar threads, and I’ll remind folks that just because you or I can’t explain a given phenomena, doesn’t mean said phenomena is therefore inexplicable, or evidence for the supernatural.
And so I posit the same is true of those looking for Bigfoot. Without looking to insult anyone’s intelligence or their integrity, those actively seeking may be too credulous for their own good, introducing an interpretive bias for things going bump in the night.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Though I should point out there’s the opposite fallacy of “this person faked a set of Bigfoot tracks, therefore all Bigfoot tracks are faked”.
There is a tipping point of course. If all known Bigfoot tracks are reasonably demonstrated to be faked, then suspicions should be applied to any such claim.
Otherwise we fall into the Flerf idiocy of “digital images can be manipulated, therefore all digital images of Earth from space must be fake”. A stance which regularly comes up, and leads to other baseless assertions (photos from space must be faked because space itself is faked, for instance)
ZergSmasher wrote: I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.
Let's just put this this way.
If it's based on faith instead of evidence it isn't a theory. Theories have evidence to support them and can be tested. Magical sky man or evil fire guy hiding stuff both can't be tested and is wild baseless speculation at best. Ain't nothing theory about that.
If you have an actual theory id be happy to hear it.
Slipspace wrote:
Do they? While I'm sure you can find someone with qualifications who agrees with pretty much any theory under the sun, I think the vast weight of evidence in this case points towards most, if not all, cryptids either not existing at all, or simply being misidentified known species. The UK, for example, has had many sightings of "very large cats" that turned out to be regular sized panthers, or similar, escaped from private collections.
An argument that truth is established based on one set of interpretations of data being more popular than another is not a logical argument and says little to nothing at all about much of anything really. It’s just an appeal to popular beliefs.
Slipspace wrote:
I don't think the majority of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other cryptid or mythological creature are liars or mentally unstable. I suspect they are simply mistaken. There are likely subconscious biases in many people's perceptions that might cause them to think they saw bigfoot when they see something not readily identifiable in locations where bigfoot is thought to live.
Again all I am seeing here are truisms that I don’t consider any reasonable person would doubt yet, once again, the existence of these types of circumstances doesn’t say anything whatsoever about whether or not some people actually ARE seeing or experiencing an unknown phenomenon.
The ‘something not readily identifiable’ might be a large bear, a stray dog, a bobcat, a panther, a hog… or a genuinely unknown entity.
Slipspace wrote:
That's true. However, I think that's being disingenuous about why people might dismiss this phenomenon. I don't think most people dismiss it "out of hand". I think they have likely weighed the evidence and possibilities and come to the conclusion it's more likely than not that bigfoot doesn't exist. I'd say that's the opposite of "out of hand". Characterising it as such is dangerously close to poisoning the well - implying those who don't believe in bigfoot are simply too closed minded to consider the possibility is a good way to shut down genuine debate.
This is a fair comment, but the original point stands and I would add your own arguments as a counter; namely those that point out cultural and social preconceptions. There is a further qualification to that statement I would also add as a gesture of goodwill so you understand this is not simply a matter of conceit on my behalf:
All paradigmatic shifts occur through the discovery of anomaly. Discovery begins through the awareness of such anomaly. Awareness being the key word. I believe that anomaly is found in the phenomenon of Bigfoot; but make no comment about WHAT it may be.
To close…
Our tools may be wonderful indeed, but they themselves tell us nothing about to where we can, or should, turn them.
Talk of how the mind perceives randomness and tries to assign order to it has me thinking of an article I read a number of years ago.
The language you speak, and the culture you are in literally alter your vison, or at least your mental processing of what your eyes give your brain. For example, some Asian cultures literally have trouble seeing the color pink because they don't have a word for it, and in fact have trouble even with the concept of it. To them it is just a shade of red. When presented with a color pallet that had progressively darkening hues on each sample, these people were significantly hindered in deciding how many different variations of red there were. This isn't evident in people from the US or Western Europe. It gets odder when you consider that children born from these cultures, yet raised in the US (Adoption) CAN see differing hues as easily as any other American. The simple word association with the concept of "pink" can do this.
Keeping that in mind, can our very belief in Bigfoot, or even the knowledge of the concept being out there, force our minds into making connections it normally wouldn't? Almost like a mass-hallucination transubstantiation.
cuda1179 wrote: Talk of how the mind perceives randomness and tries to assign order to it has me thinking of an article I read a number of years ago.
The language you speak, and the culture you are in literally alter your vison, or at least your mental processing of what your eyes give your brain. For example, some Asian cultures literally have trouble seeing the color pink because they don't have a word for it, and in fact have trouble even with the concept of it. To them it is just a shade of red. When presented with a color pallet that had progressively darkening hues on each sample, these people were significantly hindered in deciding how many different variations of red there were. This isn't evident in people from the US or Western Europe. It gets odder when you consider that children born from these cultures, yet raised in the US (Adoption) CAN see differing hues as easily as any other American. The simple word association with the concept of "pink" can do this.
Keeping that in mind, can our very belief in Bigfoot, or even the knowledge of the concept being out there, force our minds into making connections it normally wouldn't? Almost like a mass-hallucination transubstantiation.
Thanks for the interesting point.
This is a very compelling argument and I believe something like this is for sure going on. I mentioned in earlier posts how the descriptions of ‘Bigfoot’ as ‘primate’ have become more prevalent following the enlightenment and the doctrine of evolution being popularized. Before that time we had primarily ‘woodwose’, ‘forest spirits’ and ‘werewolves’, so there is clearly a massive cultural influence here. That said, many modern Bigfoot descriptions end up seeming more akin to ‘wolf men’ or some other outrageous form so exactly how such a mechanism might work in these cases is…. very mysterious.
I should add. Some in this thread seem to want to argue they don’t believe there is anything of interest or value to this topic. That is a perfectly reasonable position. That said, I don’t see the need to use such a position as a spring board into pejorative terminology regarding broader worldviews. Sensible and respectful discussion I am all for. I was politely reminded early on religious discussion is not allowed here, so at the juncture where elaboration might require forays into such considerations, I have remained silent out of respect for this forum. It would be most kind if certain others do the same, or refrain from posting on the topic at all. Stating why you do not believe in something doesn’t require one resort to insults. Hope the person I am referring to understands and I mean that with genuine good will.
ZergSmasher wrote: I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.
Let's just put this this way.
If it's based on faith instead of evidence it isn't a theory. Theories have evidence to support them and can be tested. Magical sky man or evil fire guy hiding stuff both can't be tested and is wild baseless speculation at best. Ain't nothing theory about that.
If you have an actual theory id be happy to hear it.
Well I’m not sure if you intended it or not, but congratulations on fully endorsing ZergSmashers statement as both perceptive and well reasoned.
Evidence based on faith… such as the faith you have tomorrow will be reasonably close to today? Or the faith you have in the experience of you possessing a ‘self’?
Rocky ground here.
The scientific method is humanity’s champion only as long as humanity remains humble to where its current limitations lie. The failure to do this will all but guarantee it becomes humanity’s oppressor.
Slipspace wrote:
Do they? While I'm sure you can find someone with qualifications who agrees with pretty much any theory under the sun, I think the vast weight of evidence in this case points towards most, if not all, cryptids either not existing at all, or simply being misidentified known species. The UK, for example, has had many sightings of "very large cats" that turned out to be regular sized panthers, or similar, escaped from private collections.
An argument that truth is established based on one set of interpretations of data being more popular than another is not a logical argument and says little to nothing at all about much of anything really. It’s just an appeal to popular beliefs.
That's not what I meant (I also don't think it's what I said). It's nothing to do with how popular a belief is, it's about how well any evidence stands up to scrutiny. It may well be that certain beliefs, or in this case a lack of belief in certain cryptids, is due to the lack of compelling evidence for their existence. The moment someone puts forward something more than anecdotes and grainy pictures and provides some solid, unequivocal evidence, I'm sure most rational people would agree that bigfoot exists. The fact we continue not to have that evidence points to a different conclusion.
Slipspace wrote:
I don't think the majority of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other cryptid or mythological creature are liars or mentally unstable. I suspect they are simply mistaken. There are likely subconscious biases in many people's perceptions that might cause them to think they saw bigfoot when they see something not readily identifiable in locations where bigfoot is thought to live.
Again all I am seeing here are truisms that I don’t consider any reasonable person would doubt yet, once again, the existence of these types of circumstances doesn’t say anything whatsoever about whether or not some people actually ARE seeing or experiencing an unknown phenomenon.
The ‘something not readily identifiable’ might be a large bear, a stray dog, a bobcat, a panther, a hog… or a genuinely unknown entity.
It might well be. How do you propose we investigate these claims is the question I'm asking. We seem to agree that there are, in principle, a number of possible candidate explanations for witness testimony in the case of bigfoot: mistaken identity; some mental impairment affecting memory, judgement or senses; lying; genuine sighting. What method do you propose for determining which is true in any given situation? How do you make sure your method is correct? On the wider scale, how do you use these various methods to come to a conclusion?
Slipspace wrote:
That's true. However, I think that's being disingenuous about why people might dismiss this phenomenon. I don't think most people dismiss it "out of hand". I think they have likely weighed the evidence and possibilities and come to the conclusion it's more likely than not that bigfoot doesn't exist. I'd say that's the opposite of "out of hand". Characterising it as such is dangerously close to poisoning the well - implying those who don't believe in bigfoot are simply too closed minded to consider the possibility is a good way to shut down genuine debate.
This is a fair comment, but the original point stands and I would add your own arguments as a counter; namely those that point out cultural and social preconceptions. There is a further qualification to that statement I would also add as a gesture of goodwill so you understand this is not simply a matter of conceit on my behalf:
All paradigmatic shifts occur through the discovery of anomaly. Discovery begins through the awareness of such anomaly. Awareness being the key word. I believe that anomaly is found in the phenomenon of Bigfoot; but make no comment about WHAT it may be.
To close…
Our tools may be wonderful indeed, but they themselves tell us nothing about to where we can, or should, turn them.
I'm not sure I agree entirely that all paradigm shifts occur through the discovery of an anomaly, but let's assume that's correct in the majority of cases. You're making a logical fallacy here, I think. Just because all paradigm shifts occur through the discovery of an anomaly, you don't get to declare anything you want to be the anomaly that leads to such a paradigm shift. You have to show the existence of the anomaly first. You're jumping the gun. This is why I asked above about how you reliably determine whether bigfoot exists. Even if you could prove bigfoot exists, I'm not sure how that would lead to some paradigm shift. If it does exist there's no reason to believe it's anything other than an undiscovered species. We encounter these all the time. They rarely lead to shifts in our thinking because they all fit into the current paradigm pretty well.
The scientific method is humanity’s champion only as long as humanity remains humble to where its current limitations lie. The failure to do this will all but guarantee it becomes humanity’s oppressor.
I prefer humility.
What does this even mean? The scientific method does not claim to be "humanity's champion". It's a method for investigating the natural world that works. As far as we can tell it's the best method for investigating the natural world. In what way do you think that method will become our "oppressor"? How? What do you mean by preferring humility? In the context of this discussion I fail to see how the limitations of the scientific method are relevant. We're talking about bigfoot. If it exists, it's a thing that exists in the natural world. It is therefore a thing the scientific method can be used to investigate. What's your alternative method that provides at least as good a model for determining how the world works?
The scientific method also kind of enforces humility. The peer review process means you better be sure of yourself. Certainly anything overly sloppy is going to be shown to be such.
Also keep in mind that what changes scientific consensus is….better science.
No woo peddler or non-science educated YouTube personality, such as someone convicted of tax fraud and spousal abuse as a random example has ever come even close to challenging any scientific consensus on anything.
The can talk utter bunkum about how chocolate is an octave of sun energy, or how tanning one’s nipsy and clackerbag somehow, I dunno, gives you super powers* all they want - but it’s still not science, and has no power to explain anything. Demonstrate the talker is quite happy to lie for a living sure. But not explain any phenomena we see in the natural world.
To quote one of Professor Dave’s recent debunks, and not aimed at anyone in this thread? Science isn’t dogma. You’re just stupid.
Understanding science is hard. The man in the street, Joe Average, isn’t exactly expected or particularly required to be able to read, digest and understand science. But the fun bit is, it’s there to be learned if you wish to. There’s nobody actively gatekeeping science education. It just takes time and effort to get oneself to the level where you could begin to properly critique papers, findings and theories. That’s not a flaw of the scientific method. It’s just its very nature. Complex stuff, developed over decades and drawing on numerous previous papers takes time to understand.
A given person being unable to make head nor tail of something like quantum physics or microbiology or chemical systems doesn’t make those disciplines and studies wrong.
*look it was such an unintentionally comical bit of media, the claims went forgotten.
It's also important to note that it doesn't really matter where the inspiration for a theory comes from. The truth of it is all that matters.
If you wake up one morning with a new idea about how gravity works, completely different to any current theories, it doesn't matter if it came to you in a dream, if the voices in your head dictated it to you in the shower or if some random drunk guy in the street told you all about it while throwing up on your shoes. If it's correct we can test that and find it out. If it's not, it's just one more failed theory.
One slight problem science faces now is that we've gone way beyond the point where the lay person can keep up with the frontiers of any discipline. Go back a few hundred years and we were still discovering basic principles about physics, chemistry, engineering and biology. Quite often these principles or discoveries could be elegantly shown via simple experiments and basic deduction. Nowadays, it's simply impossible for most people to understand the complexities of the quantum mechanical interactions involved in forming chemical bonds in high-pressure reactions, for example. That said, the process is still the same, and it is at least theoretically possible for most people to view a paper on any given research should they wish. Whether they can understand it is another matter. The fact you may not understand it doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean it's some grand conspiracy to keep knowledge out of the hands of the masses, it's just the natural result of how science continually builds upon previous knowledge. At some point you've built so high, a regular person can't see the summit any more.
Thanks for the reply Slipspace and I have to say I don't disagree at all with one thing you said in your posts; neither do I think any of it necessarily acts as a definitive reason not to direct study at the phenomenon.
You'll have to excuse this short reply my man, I'm currently at work and typing on this infernal device is painful.
But stop and think about the every day things we use and consume, and how little the average person actually understands about their intricacies.
I’m typing this on my iPad. A device which within my lifetime was once the preserve of science fiction - like TNG’s datapads. I know it’s a computer. And I know processors work on switches. And that WiFi involves 1s and 0s and radio waves that.
But that’s about it, genuinely. Yet we inherently trust that such items work, and work well. Maybe not if you order from Wish or Temu of course. Then who knows what you’ll receive.
I have a very rough grasp of how my beloved air fryer works. That’s an item I couldn’t live without. But I don’t really know exactly how it works. It make hot, fan am blow the heat. Food go tasty yum.
My car. Again very rough grasp of an internal combustion engine, but that’s it.
Because most of the time? I don’t need to know how these things work. It’s enough to trust they’ve been designed by people that do know what they’re doing.
That’s not faith. That’s trust. So why not extend that trust to the scientific community? We know the scientific method is robust, and self correcting. And just because I don’t understand and have no chance of gaining that understanding, it doesn’t make the underlying science flawed.
Compare to claimed “miracle cures” for cancer. Well…which cancer? Because that’s quite the catch all for any number of diseases. And how does the cure work? Trust Me Bro isn’t an answer. But, conversely, for proper medicine and medical treatments “Trust Me Bro, here’s all the studies which explain in excruciating detail exactly what this treatment does and why it’s effective” is - regardless of whether you or I can understand the evidence.
The worst offender for that in my book would be claims about the medical community ignoring or actively suppressing the claimed medical benefits of Cannabis.
Not only are the benefits uncertain - because studies have been made? But that would be the same medical community that has drugs derived from much stronger drugs, like opium and cocaine, yeah? That one. And that when an active ingredient/chemical is identified, the job is to see if we can synthesise it to ensure a given medicine has the right dosage pill to pill or shot to shot, yeah?
Heck the rate of scientific advance is such that even within one sector its very hard to keep up. That's why its always good to ask for a second opinion or a specialist when dealing with more serious/rare medical elements. Because chances are your general doctor could be quite far behind the current theories and practice. Not through any fault of their own, but simply because the rate of advance is too fast to keep up with multiple sectors AND also have time to actually treat people.
So getting other opinions and talking to specialists in a specific field can be very important steps.
Heck to go off at a tangent it would not surprise me if the development of AI helpers in tracking, processing and providing information; will one day be not only commonplace, but a required element in certain fields when the rate of study and the depth of understanding becomes greater.
But stop and think about the every day things we use and consume, and how little the average person actually understands about their intricacies.
I’m typing this on my iPad. A device which within my lifetime was once the preserve of science fiction - like TNG’s datapads. I know it’s a computer. And I know processors work on switches. And that WiFi involves 1s and 0s and radio waves that.
But that’s about it, genuinely. Yet we inherently trust that such items work, and work well. Maybe not if you order from Wish or Temu of course. Then who knows what you’ll receive.
I have a very rough grasp of how my beloved air fryer works. That’s an item I couldn’t live without. But I don’t really know exactly how it works. It make hot, fan am blow the heat. Food go tasty yum.
My car. Again very rough grasp of an internal combustion engine, but that’s it.
Because most of the time? I don’t need to know how these things work. It’s enough to trust they’ve been designed by people that do know what they’re doing.
That’s not faith. That’s trust. So why not extend that trust to the scientific community? We know the scientific method is robust, and self correcting. And just because I don’t understand and have no chance of gaining that understanding, it doesn’t make the underlying science flawed.
Compare to claimed “miracle cures” for cancer. Well…which cancer? Because that’s quite the catch all for any number of diseases. And how does the cure work? Trust Me Bro isn’t an answer. But, conversely, for proper medicine and medical treatments “Trust Me Bro, here’s all the studies which explain in excruciating detail exactly what this treatment does and why it’s effective” is - regardless of whether you or I can understand the evidence.
The worst offender for that in my book would be claims about the medical community ignoring or actively suppressing the claimed medical benefits of Cannabis.
Not only are the benefits uncertain - because studies have been made? But that would be the same medical community that has drugs derived from much stronger drugs, like opium and cocaine, yeah? That one. And that when an active ingredient/chemical is identified, the job is to see if we can synthesise it to ensure a given medicine has the right dosage pill to pill or shot to shot, yeah?
Sorry. Went off on a tangent!
As Tim Minchin said - "you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."
That's the crucial point in all of this. Faith essentially means believing something without evidence. Trust is something that's built up by reliability and experience but can be lost if that reliability is diminished. Evidence to show we shouldn't trust something is one obvious way of doing that.
I agree, which is why I think scientism is such a popular and tragic delusional belief system of the modern age, but I understand it’s appeal to those who can’t grasp science has limitations well documented and outlined by a litany of scholars from the enlightenment onwards; social scientists and psychologists have long accepted the trait towards religiosity in human beings and the trend towards hard and soft scientism proves they are indeed strongly on target with that observation.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of science, kept in its proper place with minds that can be honest about its limitations and appropriate uses.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sorry. Went off on a tangent!
Ha! I know how that can be it’s all good here,
I would like though to emphasize this thread was and is a place for people to offer up their theories and perspectives on the topic of Bigfoot and I don’t want it to descend into a hotheaded argument over epistemological truths and/or anti-religious jingoism .. or religious jingoism… or any form of jingoism at all.
With that in mind I’m interested in hearing any other theories or views or thoughts on the topic. If the skeptics wish to keep offering up possible social psychological, cultural or even scientific observations and thoughts that is cool, but let’s give everybody else who might be put off by that PERSPECTIVE (yes, that’s what some people hold no matter how much they scream it’s not ) a chance to have some fun sharing their thoughts too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The scientific method also kind of enforces humility. The peer review process means you better be sure of yourself. Certainly anything overly sloppy is going to be shown to be such.
Also keep in mind that what changes scientific consensus is….better science.
Um… I am going to have to admit more than a little skepticism about that kind of faith. For instance:
There were also some outrageously funny examples during my own academic days, but like I’ve said, this thread isn’t really about this topic so I’ll leave that there. My experience is that lunacy, narcissism and scandal occupies the corridors of academia and labs with as much frequency as any other human environment.
Scientism isn’t a thing. Because it’s not a faith position.
Can science be used irresponsibly? Sure. But so can pretty much anything.
Does science sometimes advance faster than society can keep up with? Yes. For instance, I’m an advocate for voluntary euthanasia. Whilst I pin no blame on Doctors, we’re at the point now where we can keep a person alive when nature would’ve long since seen them off this mortal coil. Speaking solely for myself? No thank you. If I’m diagnosed with something terminal, which will result in a long, drawn out death? I’ll cash in my Pension and Life Insurance, sort a couple of friends out, then go party harder than any man has ever partied before. And if my heart doesn’t give out from that partying? I’m straight off the top of the nearest cliff. Exception will be made if the UK does adopt legal voluntary euthanasia. And yes dear casual reader, I’m perfectly aware of the massive legal and financial issues voluntary euthanasia presents. No I’m not the person to say how that should work.
But science? Science is entirely neutral. It’s the pursuit of knowledge and universal constants. If someone tries to put that knowledge to illegal or immoral purposes? That’s not science’s fault, or responsibility.
To continue the medical example? Pain killers are an essential modern medicine. When prescribed sensibly and dare I say sparingly, they can massively improve the patient’s quality of life, either in the long or short term. But used or prescribed irresponsibly, they’re a sodding menace. I appreciate that as a Brit I have an entirely different experience of the medicine industry to those in the USA, so again I’m not going to go further into defining what I think is and isn’t responsible there.
Suffice to say a dodgy doctor prescribing for personal gain is no reason to start restricting that drug or medicine from anyone else - and it’s that doctor who should be punished. Or in light of a certain opioid, the manufacturer if they did indeed encourage doctors to just prescribe it, and hid just how addictive it is.
But ultimately? Science saves lives. In my own lifetime I’ve had four life threatening incidents. First immediately before I was born (induce me, or Mum and I were both dead), very shortly after I was born (stomach had no plughole. Keyhole surgery sorted that way back in 1980) age of 14 I went through a window and damn near bled to death (first aid, which is a form of medical science, basic as it is) probably saved me. Age of 16 appendix ruptured. Not only did that hurt a lot, but peritonitis is no laughing matter, even with then modern medicine.
Those who have persuaded you scientism is a thing? I’m sorry to say but they likely have an agenda, which involves discrediting scientific consensus - and they may very well be lying to you for profit.
Yet you have faith its methods will produce intelligible results? And yes, no matter where pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of back and forth go, that will remain and always has been what is colloquially called a ‘mic drop’
This is well known, well understood and entirely logical. You EXPECT the methods used in the method to be repeatable and verifiable do you not? How is this so if only that which can be empirically verified through sense data is worthy of any consideration?
No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Those who have persuaded you scientism is a thing? I’m sorry to say but they likely have an agenda, which involves discrediting scientific consensus - and they may very well be lying to you for profit.
I’m afraid those who have persuaded me are in many cases long past from this mortal coil and monetary profit is, I assume, well and truly off their agenda. I thankyou, and sincerely I do, for your concern, but can assure you all is well here.
Anyway, if you had to summarize your thoughts on the Bigfoot phenomenon, what would you say as a whole?
So, just throwing this out, but there’s this notion in UFOlogy that a lot of people who have experiences with them never come forward because they don’t want to be associated with the uncomfortably omnipresent “believers” who spout all kinds of ridiculous nonsense and conspiracy theories. Looks like that might be a factor with Bigfoot sightings going forward.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, just throwing this out, but there’s this notion in UFOlogy that a lot of people who have experiences with them never come forward because they don’t want to be associated with the uncomfortably omnipresent “believers” who spout all kinds of ridiculous nonsense and conspiracy theories. Looks like that might be a factor with Bigfoot sightings going forward.
I couldn’t agree more here. In my experience it is incredibly difficult for people who have had such bizarre and inexplicable events in their life to openly talk about them with others. Fear of ridicule is by far the biggest concern and with very good reason. It’s a very sad state of affairs honestly.
I remember one evening sat with a man who spent 27 years in the military who was so nervous about others over hearing what he wanted to talk about that he had to close his business and make sure all the customers and staff had left before he would begin to recount his story. Even then, he needed reassurances from me constantly that I didn’t think he was insane etc
He was deeply troubled by what he’d seen and frankly, if it went down the way he said it did, I’d be no different at all.
The location was interesting to say the least.
Also, as I’ve mentioned earlier, I think much of the conspiracy theory nonsense is promulgated and/or encouraged by intelligence services as has been shown and admitted to be the case in many examples.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, just throwing this out, but there’s this notion in UFOlogy that a lot of people who have experiences with them never come forward because they don’t want to be associated with the uncomfortably omnipresent “believers” who spout all kinds of ridiculous nonsense and conspiracy theories. Looks like that might be a factor with Bigfoot sightings going forward.
Pretty much this.
I posted earlier in this thread that being psychic must be terrifying, and may quickly drive you to madness as you question which thoughts are yours, and which are other people’s.
But what we can know is everyone who’s claimed to be psychic….has been debunked. And some are pretty litigious about it. Like a certain spoon bending weirdo. Doesn’t matter if it’s a medium, remote viewing etc. All comfortably debunked and singularly incapable of performing their feats in a controlled environment.
Cryptids? Honestly who knows. I’m pretty confident Bigfoot isn’t out there for the reasons given before (nothing ancestral suggested in the fossil record, multiple frauds confirmed and exposed etc) - but I accept it still could be. It’s just like, a really low chance. Nor do I believe Megaldon still exists. But the joy here is in the search, and examining what evidence is presented.
No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)
Actually many scientists don't believe science will ever explain "All Things". It accepts that there will be many things that remain unexplained; or which might defy us for many years and generations until we've built up an understanding in other areas to then discover the next layer of things. Indeed many times discovering something new in science simply reveals a whole layer of additional things that we don't understand or that we didn't even know were there to understand.
The point is that the process in itself has elements of logical, repeatable, testable and verifiable testing. Each step along the way can be proven and thus can be taught, emulated and so forth.
The other side of the coin is simply believing something you are told from a book or another person or a single personal thought. With no reputability; no testing; no proof etc....
Yes this is very easy to do; and for a great many things this is a far as you often need to bother with. Most of us don't need to prove to ourselves through extensive study that the world is round.
HOWEVER the key difference is that if we DID want to do it then there's documented methods, tests, etc... that can be used to prove it. We can also see all the vast interconnected parts that rely on this understanding - aviation; communication; entertainment and so forth. We can learn those ourselves; those can be taught to new generations. They can do those very same tests. They can also take those tests, improve on them and increase the understanding of what's being tested.
Suffice it to say that through science we are able to hold this very conversation. Science allows us to have homes; electricity; running water; the internet and so forth.
Belief doesn't yield those results. You can believe in the internet as much as you want, but no amount of sitting there believing in your mind that it works will make it work. Instead building communications networks; powering them with electricity; creating code and computing - all those elements built upon studies, tests and so forth all does make it work.
And you are right there will be lies in science. There will be "fake news" that happens; lies; missinterpretations; missunderstandings. HOWEVER the fact that all science can be repeated means that eventually those will get caught. It might take time; but they will get caught, investigated and corrected as far as science of the time can manage.
Science also accepts “well, we don’t know” as a valid position. And to me, that can be an entirely honest one. And as Overread said, there is acceptance we may never know. Either in our lifetime, or at all.
For example, interstellar travel. Right now we can send probes and that into the far reaches of our solar system. But sending us smelly hoomans off to another world lies entirely outside of our current capabilities. There are pop culture thoughts on it (cryogenics and century ships and that), but we’re not there yet.
Cryogenics for instance. We can flash freeze anyone with liquid nitrogen, no problem there. That’s dead easy. The trouble lies in things like protecting the cells (frozen cells burst, which sounds painful), and finding a way to reanimate the frozen. I’m aware there are creatures out there, such as Tardigrades who can do it to some degree and those might provide the answer - or at least point us in the direction where an answer might lie.
And I understand there are hypothesies about being able to bend space, the ol’ travelling without moving. But the power needed is well beyond what we can provide, which is no doubt the least of the problems there.
Cold Fusion is something I think we’re edging toward - there were BBC articles that showed a UK lab had taken that further than anyone had before. Doesn’t mean that tech is just around the corner, but progress is progress is progress. Yet all current attempts and research may prove fruitless in the end.
Again that’s a feature, not a flaw of science and the scientific method. Where a hypothesis is proven wrong, we at least gain the understanding of why it was wrong. And so the next attempt can build off that knowledge and experience. And that knowledge is shared, not hoarded away.
Again that’s a feature, not a flaw of science and the scientific method. Where a hypothesis is proven wrong, we at least gain the understanding of why it was wrong. And so the next attempt can build off that knowledge and experience. And that knowledge is shared, not hoarded away.
I read all of your comments and I have to agree on much of what you say. I think your efforts to guard against blind faith in the absurd and/or insane and unfounded pessimism of the scientific method is honourable, intelligent and absolutely required in our current age.
I’m not anti science, I am pro science! I am just against logically refutable concepts posing as ‘the truth’ due to a lack of transparency about the basis upon which those concepts are even possible.
So the concept of a ‘universal’ in a worldview where such concepts cannot be accounted for and so on and so forth. I can tell you are a very well educated chap and I am certain you’re familiar with the arguments. I am also not against the fact you’ve chosen to come down on one position or another, after all, neither of us wish any harm to the other. Well, maybe I don’t know you that well… but I have a feeling you’re a likable character.
So to conclude:
I am an avid supporter and believer in our scientific method; but not all of the sprawling concepts and theories and conclusions some practitioners reach using said discipline. I agree it is the predetermined nature of the technique we have to build models, I just tend to think some of the theories are laughably short of anything approximating the level of certainty that is often implied by various champions… and so we have to proceed with an open mind and much caution.
Take Bigfoot, do I think it is ‘real’…. not necessarily no. Do I believe it has been proven to be false, of course not! It’s really that simple.
What about the ‘control system’ hypothesis of Jacques Vallee? Given the malleability of perception we can demonstrate in controlled circumstances, could there be any truth to this hypothesis?
P.S.
I should correct myself. I don’t think ‘hypothesis’ is helpful given the company here. I’ll be kind to Jacques Vallee and instead restate my question as:
What about the ‘control system’ idea… does this educated and informed speculation proposed by Dr.Vallee give us any pause for inspiration on the topic?
I will link a short clip where he outlines in a very brief and general way his attitude:
Obviously he is talking ufos here but in his books he is clear this relates to ‘entities’ as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’ll also reiterate earlier comments I made regarding some of the accompanying oddities reported by many a witness of the strange:
Disorientation, loss of time, nausea, ringing in the ears, electrical devices suddenly losing power or malfunctioning, the list goes on.
This is the same issue as Fairy and Alien Abductees reporting very similar circumstances.
That is suggestive that something is being experienced by those people. At the very least, some kind of head trip. Perhaps a form of sleep paralysis, which used to be put down to Demons and that (as did much of mental health, which is still a developing field)
What might it be? As ever I dunno. But here’s an article going into more depth you may like to read. And I’m pretty sure it’s what the Fortean Times article was based upon.
I am an avid supporter and believer in our scientific method; but not all of the sprawling concepts and theories and conclusions some practitioners reach using said discipline. I agree it is the predetermined nature of the technique we have to build models, I just tend to think some of the theories are laughably short of anything approximating the level of certainty that is often implied by various champions… and so we have to proceed with an open mind and much caution.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: This is the same issue as Fairy and Alien Abductees reporting very similar circumstances.
That is suggestive that something is being experienced by those people. At the very least, some kind of head trip. Perhaps a form of sleep paralysis, which used to be put down to Demons and that (as did much of mental health, which is still a developing field)
Excellent, I wholeheartedly agree. [i]Something[/] is often being experienced here. Is it a 10ft tall gargantuan primate we have somehow not yet categorized; honestly that isn’t a view I take very seriously, but something odd is indeed going on… and we don’t understand it… much to the dismay of those involved in genuine …um… ‘events’
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What might it be? As ever I dunno. But here’s an article going into more depth you may like to read. And I’m pretty sure it’s what the Fortean Times article was based upon.
Yet you have faith its methods will produce intelligible results? And yes, no matter where pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of back and forth go, that will remain and always has been what is colloquially called a ‘mic drop’
This is well known, well understood and entirely logical. You EXPECT the methods used in the method to be repeatable and verifiable do you not? How is this so if only that which can be empirically verified through sense data is worthy of any consideration?
It's not about worthiness. It's literally about what science is concerned with investigating. The whole basis of science is investigating the natural world using empirical evidence and logic. So far it's been shown to work remarkably well. If you have an alternative approach you'd like to suggest it has to meet the fairly high bar set by science when it comes to explanatory and predictive power.
XvArcanevX wrote:
No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)
Scientism is a concept created by people who don't understand science. It's an excuse to attempt to discredit the scientific while providing nothing substantial to actually refute the discoveries and advances it's allowed us to make.
For example, I note most of the people ITT that you would likely claim are followers of scientism have defended their position and explained why they find it compelling. You have levelled vague criticisms, but not actually put forward any firm refutations or theories yourself. I think there's an element of hypocrisy there, though I don't think it's intentional. Taking the quote above, can you provide an example of the "more compelling and logical arguments" you believe we should acknowledge? It's becoming increasingly difficult to engage with you here because there's not much of substance to discuss.
Science isn't a worldview. It's a way of investigating the natural world. It doesn't claim to be able to explain all things. It's the opposite of faith-based since it is inherently falsifiable. As others have pointed out, there are bad/immoral scientists, just like there are bad/immoral doctors. That's because scientists are people. The thing that makes science different to a faith-based position is that it is intrinsic to the discipline itself that any attempt to subvert the discipline through lies, deception or other nefarious means will, in principle, be discovered and corrected by the scientific method itself. It sucks that one dodgy scientist was able to persuade large numbers of people that vaccines can cause autism, but if you look at how that claim was refuted it was with more, better science.
XvArcanevX wrote:
I’m not anti science, I am pro science! I am just against logically refutable concepts posing as ‘the truth’ due to a lack of transparency about the basis upon which those concepts are even possible.
I am an avid supporter and believer in our scientific method...Take Bigfoot, do I think it is ‘real’…. not necessarily no. Do I believe it has been proven to be false, of course not! It’s really that simple.
You claim to be pro science and a believer in the scientific method yet you clearly don't understand it at all. There's no way for science to prove bigfoot doesn't exist. That's not how science works. In some areas we can positively prove a certain hypothesis which might be incompatible with a competing hypothesis, thereby disproving it, but that's not the same as proving something false on its own. I'm using the colloquial "prove" here since all conclusions in science are tentative by their very nature. When it comes to bigfoot or other cryptids the best we can do is examine the given evidence and ask whether it's compelling or positively points to the existence of a certain creature. At the moment the answer is generally "no". Take the video posted a page or two back of some guy talking about witnessing something where he lives. It's kind of telling that the video has apparently been labelled as proof of both bigfoot and some sort of dogman, which just shows how unreliable that kind of evidence is. If that's the sort of evidence someone finds compelling it's no wonder they're prone to believe in all sorts of things that are not generally accepted as real.
XvArcanevX wrote:
What about the ‘control system’ hypothesis of Jacques Vallee? Given the malleability of perception we can demonstrate in controlled circumstances, could there be any truth to this hypothesis?
From what I can gather it seems like a bunch of supposition unsupported by anything testable. It's a possible explanation for various phenomena, but there doesn't seem to be much evidential support for the theory.
You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.
I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?
Also, important distinction? Science seeks to explain, not prove.
Evolution is an explanation of how species develop, specifically from a common ancestor. And it goes well, well beyond Darwin’s theories. Biggest difference? Darwin had no idea DNA and RNA even existed.
Evolution is however, a fact. Species change and adapt over time. What is still being studied is the mechanism, or even mechanisms.
And importantly? Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. That would be origin of life research, such as Systems Chemistry which is aiming to understand how life could develop in a prebiotic environment.
Beware of false dichotomies when people are trying to disprove scientific theories. All often, the approach seems to be “if I can rubbish X, my explanation is the only other one on the table”.
To merely brush the religious side of this? And I mean the lightest of touch? Perhaps we do end up left with the conclusion an outside intelligence kicked off life on our planet. That doesn’t mean therefore one of the world’s many religions is right. Like. At all. Nor does it mean said intelligence is still around, or did anymore than start things off. Possibly even Just For A Laugh And A Chortle.
But this is why cryptozoology is an interest of mine. It’s an interesting exercise for the scientific method. When hairs are tested and prints examined, us layman are exposed more and more to the world of science. And for me? My appreciation for just how much humanity knows increases.
Answer my question, and I will answer yours. It's a simple question, what scientific theories do you have problems with? Gravity? Evolution? Relativity? Electromagnetism? Quantum Mechanics?
You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.
I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?
This is a bad faith post that paints you as an unserious person to be ignored. Is that what you’re aiming for?
How about you answer some questions directly, without condescension, in three medium-sized sentences or less. If you can’t express your ideas in a straightforward manner, that is as issue you can’t expect us to solve for you.
You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.
I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?
At this point you're coming across as a troll. Myself and other posters have all noted your unwillingness to provide any sort of positive theory about what you think. You've been content to criticise other people's view of how the world works but you've constantly tried to shield yourself from similar criticism.
You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.
I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?
This is a bad faith post that paints you as an unserious person to be ignored. Is that what you’re aiming for?
How about you answer some questions directly, without condescension, in three medium-sized sentences or less. If you can’t express your ideas in a straightforward manner, that is as issue you can’t expect us to solve for you.
It isn’t at all that. I’m simply reiterating in a creative way I am not interested in having this thread degenerate into an epistemological debate.
I have repeated that politely over and over again. I’m being sincere about that.
If certain people find that frustrating I am sorry they feel that way but the way I see it they could very easily start their own thread on any such topic of their choosing and people could engage with it at their leisure.
I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.
Now I hope that is enough to leave that matter as it is and, in good faith, return to a fun and speculative discussion.
As for me being a troll, I take great offense to that. I have been an active and happy participant in this forum and partake in the monthly competition without fail. I am being genuine, open and sincere. It is absolutely not at all fair to assume me to be trolling whatsoever.
I have expressed an interest in a number of views here. I have been clear. I make no claims to KNOW what the phenomenon represents at all.
I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.
Anybody with any understanding of science would obviously agree with that limitation. The problem is you haven't done anything to show why this limitation matters in relation to bigfoot. Again, that's because you steadfastly refuse to actually put forward your own point of view. Everyone else seems to have come down on the side of bigfoot not existing and have offered a series of possible explanations. You've mused endlessly on the nature of scientific study while making veiled criticisms of people who put too much "faith" in science while insulating yourself from any counter-criticism by failing to make any definitive statements of your own.
I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.
One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?
I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.
Anybody with any understanding of science would obviously agree with that limitation. The problem is you haven't done anything to show why this limitation matters in relation to bigfoot. Again, that's because you steadfastly refuse to actually put forward your own point of view. Everyone else seems to have come down on the side of bigfoot not existing and have offered a series of possible explanations. You've mused endlessly on the nature of scientific study while making veiled criticisms of people who put too much "faith" in science while insulating yourself from any counter-criticism by failing to make any definitive statements of your own.
With respect, I have made several allusions suggesting I find the ‘control system’ ideas of Jacques Valle interesting but not exactly definitive. Others have suggested it is anything from hysteria to simple misidentification of known animals. Again I see nothing here indicating I’m being insincere, or that anybody else is being insincere, it’s simply an exploration of views.
Kanluwen wrote: I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.
One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?
They take care of their dead.
And most of our understanding of human history is based on - digging up the dead
No physical remains including waste and bodies is a huge element. Again if there's no credible evidence of the existence of a creature being present then its very hard to then justify that that creature is, therefore, around. Heck many species are studied purely by the presence or absence of waste product rather than the animal itself (because they are highly elusive and avoid humans). We also have trail cameras, motion sensors, thermal, etc... There are a lot of ways to remotely study such areas and see what's around. For a large creature like a Yeti or Bigfoot it should be reasonably easy to at least capture more evidence through remote setups.
The main issue though isn't that there's very little evidence; its that there is basically zero evidence outside of anecdotal. That doesn't make it wrong, but it means that its very very hard to prove and very hard to believe that its potentially true.
Again we have to look at the fact that the increase in our observational methods, cameras and so forth hasn't led to an increase in sightings. In theory if such creatures were around we should see a steady increase of evidence not a reduction.
Kanluwen wrote: I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.
One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?
They take care of their dead.
Which is a lovely bit of conjecture, but is mostly just papering over the tracks with an ad-hoc explanation. One might as well say there’s no evidence of remains because the living eat every last part of the dead.
Burying the dead is I think a uniquely human trait. Other apes do have a kind of funeral rite and demonstrate grief. But that’s not burying the dead.
And if they are doing that? We’d again expect something in the archaeological record. Yet there’s….nowt. At all. No fossils. No complete or fragmentary skeletal remains.
In short, the only evidence we really have are some dodgy videos and after the fact claims by humans.
Kanluwen wrote: I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.
This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.
One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?
They take care of their dead.
That seems to make the problem worse, not better. If these animals bury their dead that implies a functioning society of some kind, which would be much, much easier to identify than a small number of solitary animals.
Kanluwen wrote: I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.
This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.
Exactly, which is why the Cryptozoology ends up being left with the really "out there" stuff that has very little to no verifiable proof/evidence. Because anything that does generate interest and then generates actual proof and observations is just real science and real Zoology and no longer crypto.
With respect, I have made several allusions suggesting I find the ‘control system’ ideas of Jacques Valle interesting but not exactly definitive. Others have suggested it is anything from hysteria to simple misidentification of known animals. Again I see nothing here indicating I’m being insincere, or that anybody else is being insincere, it’s simply an exploration of views.
Which is not a definitive statement about anything. I'd also point out that you didn't really say anything at all about the control systems idea other than to bring it up in a very vague and nebulous fashion. That's hardly putting forward your own theories or ideas. You've been asked several times to expand on what your problems are with science with regard to bigfoot and have basically not done so in any positive fashion, which leads to a complete stagnation of debate because there's no substance to actually talk about.
Note that Kanluwen put forward an actual theory seeking to explain some of the reasons we don't have better proof for bigfoot's existence and it immediately led to further discussion and debate.
Cryptozoology is kind of straddling the line. There are cranks. Many, many cranks. No dispute there. But there are suitably qualified persons doing it at least as a hobby. Not to prove or disprove specifically, but to see where the evidence takes them.
As mentioned before, there are genuine species which were once considered Cryptids. Creatures reported and believed myth, only to be discovered and described.
Usual caveat that just because A, B and C are proven to exist, it doesn’t mean cryprids D through Z are therefore also real and just really really unbelievably, “Richard III has nowt on us” good at hide and seek.
I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.
And yet science also has Dark Matter - something that it can't directly observe, but that we know is there through proxy information in other areas. It's outside of our field of easy observation right now, but we know its there because it leaves its mark on reality as we observe it currently. So we give it a name and we study around it with what we can.
What you're saying is that if there is something out there that leaves no trace on any human sense, no trace on the world that we can observe (even by proxy) and that cannot be studied in any form - then it must exist because one very rare time it did leave a blurry photo?
Again Bigfoot has to be observable unless its a creature beyond any human understanding of the natural world. That isn't impossible, but unless there's proof of it being a thing and unless there's proof of it at east by proxy; then we can't really do anything about it. You can't argue for nor against it because its not a thing to us. There has to BE something otherwise you're just making it up.
And there have been things - sightings blurry photos and so forth. However those have not increased over time comparably with technological advances; nor with increased observation and awareness in the active areas. Again we didn't see more evidence arise we saw less. Furthermore it is possible to provide multiple theories which explain in rational terms, what those earlier observations might well have been which fit with what we have already observed within reality.
Kanluwen wrote: I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.
This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.
Sure, and there are zoologists who treat these unidentified humanoids seriously.
One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?
They take care of their dead.
That seems to make the problem worse, not better. If these animals bury their dead that implies a functioning society of some kind, which would be much, much easier to identify than a small number of solitary animals.
And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.
Cryptozoology is kind of straddling the line. There are cranks. Many, many cranks. No dispute there. But there are suitably qualified persons doing it at least as a hobby. Not to prove or disprove specifically, but to see where the evidence takes them.
As mentioned before, there are genuine species which were once considered Cryptids. Creatures reported and believed myth, only to be discovered and described.
Usual caveat that just because A, B and C are proven to exist, it doesn’t mean cryprids D through Z are therefore also real and just really really unbelievably, “Richard III has nowt on us” good at hide and seek.
That kind of us the point I was making. Cyrptid gets left with the wild stuff; now sometimes that does prove fruitful or the study within the area turns something else up that wasn't observed. However at that point it leaves cryptid and just becomes regular science.
It doesn't help that Cryptid also has a lot of crackpots within it which devalues it as a term. So chances are many who are studying such elements just call themselves zoologists studying the potential of X creature existing within a region or such.
Kanluwen wrote: I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.
This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.
Sure, and there are zoologists who treat these unidentified humanoids seriously.
One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?
They take care of their dead.
That seems to make the problem worse, not better. If these animals bury their dead that implies a functioning society of some kind, which would be much, much easier to identify than a small number of solitary animals.
And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.
That defends the point though. There were tribes and they were found through further study. They left evidence which led to study and observation and thus proof.
They were found by aggressive encroachment and deforestation.
Worth noting that locals had insisted the groups were there, but they were decried as local legends or groups who chose to regress ala the Amish.
Ahh well if not study in the sense of academic, then at least study in terms of the habited area being observed and operated in more and more through encroachment. Even if it wasn't the intention of the encroachment and deforestation.
But this all just defends the point that a population of something will leave evidence and can be observed when more observations are made within an area. Be that remote trail cameras; trap cameras; traps; deforestation; tourists with cameras or whatever.
And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.
Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.
If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.
They were found by aggressive encroachment and deforestation.
Worth noting that locals had insisted the groups were there, but they were decried as local legends or groups who chose to regress ala the Amish.
Ahh well if not study in the sense of academic, then at least study in terms of the habited area being observed and operated in more and more through encroachment. Even if it wasn't the intention of the encroachment and deforestation.
But this all just defends the point that a population of something will leave evidence and can be observed when more observations are made within an area. Be that remote trail cameras; trap cameras; traps; deforestation; tourists with cameras or whatever.
Do you understand exactly how large some of the areas where Sasquatch/Bigfoot sightings are? How unpopulated they are?
Even with remote trail cameras, there's a lot of area to cover. And that's just talking the Pacific Northwest, not going into things like the Canadian sightings or Alaska.
And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.
Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.
The Pacific Northwest isn't "central USA". Even with that said, there's huge chunks of the US where you can drive for hours and see no real civilization.
If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.
But there's the reason why it's a bit daft to suggest that the scientific method works in this regards:
-We haven't fully explored those areas, often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes
-Said tribes have folklore and first-hand accounts about exactly these things, which are discounted as superstition and folklore by academics...tribes cease sharing those accounts or evidence.
And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.
Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.
If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.
To be fair, the Pacific Northwest has huge tracts of wilderness that are mostly impassable for any but the most dedicated adventurer. There’s plenty of room for unknown species to live and die there.
It’s possible that a population of large hominids exist out there and have been spotted on occasion, and once Bigfoot entered popular consciousness we would expect the bulk of sightings to be misidentifications by people who saw their first bear or whatever in more heavily trafficked areas.
I dunno. It seems pretty unlikely that there is some undiscovered large animal hiding in the wilderness of a country where it is basically a national pastime to head out into the wilderness to shoot large animals...
And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.
Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.
The Pacific Northwest isn't "central USA". Even with that said, there's huge chunks of the US where you can drive for hours and see no real civilization.
Fair enough regarding the location - my bad. The fact remains, however, that positing some kind of functioning society as the reason we haven't found bigfoot remains doesn't make sense. You've just increased the likelihood of finding bigfoot in that case.
If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.
But there's the reason why it's a bit daft to suggest that the scientific method works in this regards: -We haven't fully explored those areas, often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes -Said tribes have folklore and first-hand accounts about exactly these things, which are discounted as superstition and folklore by academics...tribes cease sharing those accounts or evidence.
The scientific method works based on evidence. If evidence exists it can be investigated by scientific means, but it can't create that evidence on its own. The lack of good evidence that we can actually investigate is exactly why I remain extremely sceptical about the existence of bigfoot. The time to believe in something is when there is sufficient evidence to do so and we just don't have that yet. Doesn't mean we won't, but the longer we go without discovering these creatures the less likely it seems that they exist at all.
There's a reason why witness testimony is usually considered the weakest kind of evidence for something. It's very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any single account is accurate. Even if we can be fairly sure the witness isn't flat-out lying or under the influence of drugs or some mental impairment, we know human memory is extremely unreliable and prone to manipulation. How do we know this? We tested it. Using science. Then you add in that folklore and superstition are often self-reinforcing phenomena. If there's already a superstition or tradition that there's large hairy man-like creatures in the mountains, then you end up with all sorts of things misattributed to this creature that otherwise would not be. Taking all that into account, it should be obvious why we need more than just these testimonies to draw good conclusions.
There was a point brought up a few pages back about witness testimony for UFO sightings and abductions. The poster mentioned the idea that a lot of testimony may go unrecorded because there is social pressure not to mention these sort of experiences for fear of being branded a crackpot or weirdo. I think that's quite a plausible theory and you could reasonably conclude we're missing out on a lot of potential testimony because of it. Even if the theory is true, it doesn't tell you anything about the validity of the claims.
Also with Bigfoot? Any evidence presented has been analysed. Tufts of unrecognised fur from not that long ago was examined, and determined to be from a Pizzly Bear, a rare but not unknown Polar Bear/Grizzly Bear hybrid.
Folk have been caught out or admitted faking tracks. The infamous film just happened to be made by men seeking funding for a Bigfoot documentary, who just happened to not only see Bigfoot, but standing out in the open, with enough time to setup their camera, and get quite pleasing framing, on quite possibly uneven ground, and the “shy and retiring” Bigfoot which “normally avoids human contact” didn’t just leg it into cover. Or show any distress or concern.
The thing about positing fakery off of "shows no fear of humans" is that it ignores the wild animals that just don't have the interactions with humans to make them fearful.
Expedition X just aired their episode on the phenomenon of British big cats. A railway worker had a fairly disturbing encounter with what he claimed was a big cat, made all the more disturbing by his colleagues having said that they noticed it stalking him before he ever noticed it.
Right, but if that’s an Alien Big Cat? We can’t rule out it hasn’t had some interaction with humans, certainly if it’s an escaped zoo or circus animal. Also, Cats are predatory creatures, which are proven to tackle dodgy prey when hungry enough. So the behaviour described isn’t unusual enough to compare.
This Bigfoot footage? The guys were trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot documentary. In that area. And “whoopsadoodle would you look at that we gosh darned just caught the big sod on film what are the chances of that happening, eh?”
This opens up serious and legitimate skepticism as to their motivations. I’m fairly sure they even had a costume for their documentary already. And the subject shows no concern or curiosity whatsoever. No fear, no aggression, no curiosity is a very, very odd reaction from a wild animal or hominid.
In short? They absolutely had the means and motivation to fake it. Whilst not conclusive, given the complete lack of any other evidence, it’s far more likely to be a hoax.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Consider what we know of other Great Apes.
Gorillas are super curious, and will come poke and prod a human, provided you don’t show signs of challenge, like staring. But if you sit down, head down? They’ll come suss you out with a minimised risk of them giving you a good shoeing.
But this Bigfoot apparently doesn’t know what we are, and didn’t care. That’s a very unusual reaction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Furthermore, on the “maybe they bury their dead”?
The footage shows a single creature. As that’s the best evidence, to conclude they’re social animals seems a stretch, and is just adding whataboutism purely to explain a lack of further evidence. Especially as it’s been interpreted as a female. If we look to all other hominids and Great Apes? The females tend to be social, as it’s beneficial to successful child rearing. Even nominally solitary female Orangutans will share territory with other females and their offspring. So to find one entirely alone would seem to be somewhat unusual.
It is an interesting thought, but a step too far into wild speculation/gap filling for my tastes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here’s a semi-relevant video, regarding the discovery and scientific description of the extinct Gigantopithicus, the largest Ape species that we know of.
Warning, some swearing from our presenter. And her style might not be for everyone. But she is factual.
I don't know what footage you're specifically referring to. I don't much care either, because there's definitely a lot of fakery out there.
What I'm telling you is that there's been enough folklore and fairly credible eyewitness accounts dating back hundreds of years surrounding these things in the Americas and Himalayas to make me firmly be in the "I'd be flabberghasted if there wasn't something to it" camp.
You bring up the point about 'social behaviors' for hominids, and like I said earlier about how certain accounts either just aren't reported/published or are flatout ignored by more "serious academics"? That's actually a touchstone for a large number of accounts surrounding Sasquatch from the various tribes in the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Alaska.
LONG before the Patterson Film made Bigfoot go "mainstream" and before Jane Goodall's work with various primates, there were accounts of Sasquatches as family units. That they were social to a point with the tribes that they shared the region with, and that some could even speak the various languages of the tribes that they interacted with. A hallmark of current, more credible sightings/accounts is that there's a lot of "clicking and whistling" involved.
As an interesting note? The term "Sasquatch" is believed to be an anglicized version of the term "sasq'ets"(roughly: "hairy man") from British Colombian tribal languages. Their descriptions were not of massive, 14 foot hairy individuals but rather more human sized.
It wasn't until the 1950s onward in the Pacific Northwest of the US that the whole "Bigfoot" thing started to exist, after prints(revealed much later to have been faked) were found at a logging site and the workers started referring to the culprit as "Bigfoot"...and that's how we come full circle to where existing folklore of hairy humanoids that had been reported as early (or late, depending upon how you choose to look at it!) as the Spanish missionaries on the West Coast morphing into this idea of "Bigfoot".
Ergo fully human just in hiding likely due to stigma.
As for big cats, that myth in the UK has yet to actually bare fruit of finding a large carnivore let alone a breeding population capable of sustaining itself over multiple generations. Plus, again, we lack evidence of their passing.
The wild boar in the UK that many people never see are known about because they leave evidence.
Many cryptids fall apart because there is just no evidence of their being around. We get the human eye witness sightings, but beyond that tracks, trails, kills, territorial markings, scat, bones, etc... We don't find anything.
At the very best a few, like big cat sightings, could indeed be singular individuals that escaped collections and the escape was not reported.
This is where science says that there's a very strong change that eye witness accounts are unreliable due to lack of alternative supporting evidence.
Also lets not forget a lot of sightings often happen at dawn/dusk/night. Now whilst a lot of wildlife is more active at those hours; we are also pretty rubbish at low light vision. On the whole human eyesight isn't made for the night time.
Oh wow, a skeptic found something that validated their beliefs! I'm shocked!
Again: you seem to not grasp just how vast of an area we're talking about. Even just the Pacific Northwest into Canada and up into Alaska(IE: where the legends & folklore were more widespread) is a ridiculously large area.
Why not try….reviewing the evidence presented, rather than dismissing it out of hand?
Here’s a taster. Many of the stories claimed to relate to Bigfoot in Kathy Strain’s “Giants, Cannibals & Monsters” categorically do not come anywhere close to describing a Bigfoot.
The content creator has also communicated with the Native American tribe to whom the legend of Sasquatch specifically belongs…who say it’s a spiritual being, not an an actual creature.
Which goes a pretty decent way to counter your claim of Native American tales, no?
Yet you have faith its methods will produce intelligible results? And yes, no matter where pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of back and forth go, that will remain and always has been what is colloquially called a ‘mic drop’
No. There is no "faith" in the scientific method and thus science. The scientific method is a process. A list of instructions. And those instructions produce the best possible outcome to answer questions logically by assessing evidence and experimentation. It is also self correcting when new evidence presents itself. There is no faith in science. There is the results of science.
This is well known, well understood and entirely logical. You EXPECT the methods used in the method to be repeatable and verifiable do you not? How is this so if only that which can be empirically verified through sense data is worthy of any consideration?
No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)
No. There is no "faith" in the scientific method and thus science. The scientific method is a process. A list of instructions. And those instructions produce the best possible outcome to answer questions logically by assessing evidence and experimentation. It is also self correcting when new evidence presents itself. There is no faith in science. There is the results of science.
People don't have "faith" that the results will be repeatable and verifiable. They are tested to see if they are repeatable. They are submitted for peer review to be verified. When you hit the power button on your device to have this conversation it works because we learned how to send those electrical signals into that circuit through repeatable, verifiable, experimentation and advancement.
Scientism is a word used to try and even the playing field between faith and science by bringing science down to faiths low level of not requiring any evidence at all. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.
Things that exist leave evidence of their existence. Now... we might not have or lack the tools to detect that evidence. Sure.
But let's consider Reiki and other "spirit healing". The common arugement being we lack the tools to detect and understand whats going on with it. Sure... But here is what we can do. We can measure physical trauma. If someones spine if damaged we can SEE that. We can see exactly how and how much. We can measure it. And if Reiki was real we could put 1000 reiki masters in a lab with 10 test subjects each and we can measure the trauma pre reiki treatment and measure it after to see the EFFECT of this supposed energy we cannot detect.
And yet... not once, not ever, have we been able to measure a single physical impact of any of that. The evidence suggest reiki is a grift.
If Cryptids are out there they leave evidence. Because things that exist leave evidence of their existence. Until we have some actual evidence it isn't any more worth considering than unicorns and dragons.
So, this thread has devolved into the usual sauce with this sort of thing, and is dipping close into crack-pottery.
Therefore, let's change the perspective on this thread a bit to make it something useable? Let's talk a bit more about how Bigfoot fits into the "culture". For example, in my rural, very conservative, mountainous area; Bigfoot representations are very common. As far as I know, there have been no popular bigfoot sighting in this area yet his image and legend is all over the place.
Perhaps, Bigfoot is now a totem for a certain type of cultural preference? A more rural, counter-culture that rejects "modern" thinking and prefers a certain romantic "back-to-nature" naturism or even a more self-sufficient outlook? Therefore, Bigfoot is now an extension of the post-modern Culture War rather than an actual thing to be discovered.
I wonder if UFOs and Fairy abductions also fall into these "Romantic" reactions to Modern culture? Pretty sure this is not a unique take, so does anyone know any good Folklorists/Anthropologists who have researched the topic?
Whilst I’ll always remain a Willing Disbeliever, I’d be more than happy to do a tour of such museums and attractions, because the Story is probably more compelling than the truth.
Those attractions cause zero harm, and aren’t really bothering anyone. And they may be a surprising lynchpin of local economies. After all, a visit would likely involve somewhere to stay, something to eat and drink, fuel for your car, car snacks, and of course some kind of souvenir or three. All in an area I might otherwise have few if any compelling reasons to stop in.
One can look to Orkney as a similar thing, thanks to its ridiculous amount of Neolithic sites. Maes Howe might be on the arse end of nowhere, and the visitors centre somewhat basic. But visitors also frequent the ice cream shop and cafe, and so the local economy is supported by tourism.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On UFO and Fairy stuff, I shared a link a few posts back you may find interesting.
Oh yeah, I love Cryptids as much or more than the next guy. I am like you Doc, it is more fun to indulge, just like I love folklore, myths, tall tales, legends, and the like.
That said, the popularity of such things probably goes beyond simple commercialization. I would argue there must also be something culturally significant to them for their popularity to persist.
We’re humans. We love a good story. And being the sole species we know of to have complex language, something utterly unique to our species. Same with art.
Using stories to set out fables and moral lessons is a useful way of imparting wisdom to the young. You can tell a kid “don’t walk away from the fire in the dark” is simply less compelling than detailing, and even inventing, a why to that bit of wisdom. All that matters is that kiddo stays put, and hopefully you didn’t over do it and the little sod will still get to sleep.
Add in that written language is relatively modern, let alone widespread literacy which is ridiculously modern? And stories are how we learned and taught each other for millennia.
What is the media we all consume if not very fancy story telling? So compelling we’ll gladly collectively cough up billions every year to have a chance to see and hear someone’s tale.
Think I’m gonna go read up (no, not research, I’m not going anywhere near that deep!) on the origin of stories and fairy tales, because it’s absolutely something I want to know.
Crispy78 wrote: I dunno. It seems pretty unlikely that there is some undiscovered large animal hiding in the wilderness of a country where it is basically a national pastime to head out into the wilderness to shoot large animals...
From my understanding people don’t go out so far that they can’t drag their kills back to the car. Every time I drive through Northern California, Oregon or Washington, I am humbled by the sheer magnitude of the wilderness. Looking for side streets or shortcuts on a map app shows just how inaccessible the bulk of that territory really is to the vast majority of people.
While I tend to feel similarly to MDG, in that I doubt the existence of most cryptids but I would love to be proven wrong, I also admit there is a crapton of unexplored land that could hold all kinds of biodiversity we aren’t aware of yet. This isn’t Loch Ness we’re talking about here.
I am inclined to say that there probably isn't a bigfoot, today. However, given the legends and myths of native americans in the pacific northwest it is possible that there was a giant ape which lived in the area back in the Ice age. Stories of which have been passed down and given life in the cultural zeitgeist. If it was real it most definitely extinct today or we would have found something.
However, I do think a related creature could still exist. The Yeti in the areas of Nepal and Butan, with the latter being more likely. It is a very isolationist country which doesn't allow very many foreigners(and technology) in. The Yeti features quite prominently in their culture and not just as a mythical creature.
There could easily be a population of rare large apes in those areas which are extremely isolated and don't have the penetration of modern technology which would make it hiding a lot more likely.
Easy E wrote: So, this thread has devolved into the usual sauce with this sort of thing, and is dipping close into crack-pottery.
Therefore, let's change the perspective on this thread a bit to make it something useable? Let's talk a bit more about how Bigfoot fits into the "culture". For example, in my rural, very conservative, mountainous area; Bigfoot representations are very common. As far as I know, there have been no popular bigfoot sighting in this area yet his image and legend is all over the place.
Perhaps, Bigfoot is now a totem for a certain type of cultural preference? A more rural, counter-culture that rejects "modern" thinking and prefers a certain romantic "back-to-nature" naturism or even a more self-sufficient outlook? Therefore, Bigfoot is now an extension of the post-modern Culture War rather than an actual thing to be discovered.
I wonder if UFOs and Fairy abductions also fall into these "Romantic" reactions to Modern culture? Pretty sure this is not a unique take, so does anyone know any good Folklorists/Anthropologists who have researched the topic?
This became a real problem with UFOlogy in the 90’s or even before.
People reported encounters. People wanted to believe. When mainstream science did not find extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims, people became resentful and then mistrustful. Then groups of people found themselves at odds with “science” or mainstream perspectives, and splintered into a bunch of rabbit holes.
While trying to read up on documented experiences, I’d often find myself in undated with questionable, agenda-driven BS, from Raelians to Annunaki to mystics to millennialist Christians. And I think it’s due to the counterculture effect you describe.
Looks like Bigfoot has gone much the same way, with people seemingly tying in the Bigfoot cryptids with paradigm-shifting-anomalies, hints that demons are real or there’s a sinister conspiracy at the heart of reality, something that would blow the sheeple’s minds open.
This 10000000% - I used to believe in a lot of things, but I have known for decades with everyone toting a camera that we are sadly not living in a world with much left undiscovered. UFOs, maybe, as there are always new military videos coming out. But Bigfoot? No... Also, the plethora of bigfoot expedition shows? Fer Gad's sake, why watch them? They will never find anything and if they did it would be on the 6 o'clock news way before your episode comes out.
This 10000000% - I used to believe in a lot of things, but I have known for decades with everyone toting a camera that we are sadly not living in a world with much left undiscovered. UFOs, maybe, as there are always new military videos coming out. But Bigfoot? No... Also, the plethora of bigfoot expedition shows? Fer Gad's sake, why watch them? They will never find anything and if they did it would be on the 6 o'clock news way before your episode comes out.
For the same reason I occasionally binge watch episodes of Ancient Aliens. Its entertaining as hell to watch people spin their wheels saying insane things. None of those shows will ever have this guy though. And his hair that gets more out of control every season as his spray on tan gets more orange with it.
This 10000000% - I used to believe in a lot of things, but I have known for decades with everyone toting a camera that we are sadly not living in a world with much left undiscovered. UFOs, maybe, as there are always new military videos coming out. But Bigfoot? No... Also, the plethora of bigfoot expedition shows? Fer Gad's sake, why watch them? They will never find anything and if they did it would be on the 6 o'clock news way before your episode comes out.
Mentioning the 6 o’clock news made a penny drop.
Cryptozoology, like Bigfoot hunting, is probably the easiest way to gain scientific fame. You don’t need particularly fancy equipment. You don’t need a high level of education.
Provided you have a camera, and the gumption to not disturb a find (at least at first) you’re away. If you could find say, a cave which is where Bigfoot stash their dead? You’re now famous. You just proved Bigfoot exists, or at least existed.
And such “whoa!” finds have been made. Consider Skara Brae, a Neolithic Orcadian village which predates the Pyramids.
Whilst with larger species its more a case of known populations being reclassified through new studies.
Finding a much larger land based species that's both totally unknown to science and isn't a simple hybrid/reclassification of already known populations - now that's exceptional. I'd argue you'd have to be looking at areas which aren't just remote but functionally isolated via the geography. Not just a big area, but one where migration is nearly impossible. Otherwise even if an area is vast, the species itself could easily migrate around.
Indeed with climatic change you'd have expected potentially more sightings of Bigfoot as its environment and climate change and shift.
Personally I think the only place we'll find larger mammalian creatures that are totally unknown to science is the deep sea. Same for larger non-mammalian species.
The trouble is fitting Bigfoot into the wider picture.
We know other hominids existed. We find remains fairly regularly, and entirely new species are a cause of excitement.
But. Bigfoot is seemingly native to North America. Which has no native species of Great Ape at all. Nor have we found fossils/remains of tall, bipedal hominids or Great Apes anywhere else in the world. That’s unusual, because of the evolutionary traits for bipedalism we see in modern humans and other hominids in the records. So there’s nothing particularly compelling to suggest a Bigfoot would be out there.
And so if it is real? It would be a significant discovery, as it would add a big old “not currently known” branch to the tree.
Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.
I’m more inclined to believe in Dinosaur like creatures in the deep Amazon, because that is a truly massive area of Stuff. And a complete sod to explore, either just in general or with an archaeological or palentoliogical intent.
And there are really bizarre areas. I saw a documentary a while back which included a lagoon/pond area which was either incredibly acidic or really hot. Or something like that. We understand how that all works though, so unusual but not mysterious. But it goes to show that other unusual areas most probably do exist, so applying What We Know is a poor second compared to actually going and finding out in that instance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Though another thought on Plesiosaurs and Nessie and that?
We know that, at least at one point? That was a successful body plan. Long neck with fine, needle like teeth, limbs adapted to paddles, and presumably able to hold its breath for significant periods work. And so whilst I very much doubt a species of Plesiosaur remains alive anywhere? I’m not going to rule out another species evolving into much the same niche, with much the same body plan.
Especially in barely explored areas like the Amazon or Congo. And so “but dinosaurs are extinct therefore no Nessie, Moseley-Mbembe etc” is a somewhat blinkered view, as really it only rules out those Cryptids being extant dinosaur species, not the possibility of their existence, period.
Overread wrote: Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.
Well, Loch Ness isn't isolated. It is open on both ends to the ocean.
Overread wrote: Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.
Well, Loch Ness isn't isolated. It is open on both ends to the ocean.
Which is why I favour the "greenland shark" explanation for Nessie it is within their range and they do occasionally come to shallower waters. There are old accounts of possible shark incidents in Scottish lochs.
Or? It could be something with set breeding grounds, in the manner of Salmon. And so not always present in the Loch. And if it somehow didn’t have annual breeding seasons, we might reasonably expect sightings to be rare.
This thread got me reading one of Loren Coleman’s books on Cryptozoology, and it’s surprising how many places keep reporting sightings of short, furry hominids. The accounts range from the coasts of Africa to Vietnam, Siberia to Florida. Often the descriptions include white patches or piebald coloring, skittish behavior and whistling types of noises. Bigfoot seems to be the odd hominid out, being a giant rather than diminutive.
On the one hand, the consistency of the descriptions* sure makes it sound like people are seeing the same kind of thing. On the other hand, the lack of physical evidence seems even more significant if such creatures are really so widespread. Seems like we have a type for misidentifying forest critters.
*The book classifies sightings of furry bipeds hanging out with UFOs, or having three toes or pointed ears, to be something else, as they tend to fit into a different pattern, more like Mothman sightings and the like.
To me its a little like the sightings of a "big cat" and how similar they are the world over.
It might well simply be a function of the human mind a little like how many people who get sleep paralysis envision a person standing over them; or the nightmare of teeth falling out.
Ergo there is a pattern taking place, but its more to do with how our brains work rather than something actually being there. So it could be that when we have an incomplete image of a situation - drunk, dark conditions, foggy, disorientated, panicked etc... - the brain tries to fill in the gaps and does so in a series of ways that are very similar.
Perhaps often landing on "ok I don't know what that is but that shape is KIND OF like a big cat/predator so DANGER THREAT. Especially when you consider that a big cat is very similar to a large dog or any other major four legged predatory animal.
So its something that's triggering a series of thought patterns that's creating the very same (or similar) mental image of a threat or potentially threatening thing. Notice how in all these cases its often something threatening, scary or otherwise dangerous.
Things like this have been used to justify things such as "Genetic memory" and "instinctive knowledge" and so forth. Using the argument that many people in the model world have never had reason to fear a big cat because they don't exist in the wild as a threat. So you wouldn't "learn" it. However it seems to be a bit different to that in that it is something on a genetic/instinctive level, but not quite the whole genetic learning angle (that is generally regarded as fake science).
Well, much of the world has big cats, with lots of physical evidence. And they do pose a danger as they sometimes attack and even kill people. I consider most of the sightings the world over to be credible.
Also, people keep Big Cats as pets. And by no means is everyone doing that meant to be doing that.
So whilst I don’t think we’re looking at a wild, breeding population in the UK? ABC’s escaped from captivity seems plausible - especially if the erstwhile owner recaptures it on the quiet.
It makes sense from a basic evolutionary perspective. Primitive people whose minds are better at pattern recognition, and can more easily make out a lurking predatory beast, are less likely to be eaten by said beast and will be more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. It may end up to the point where some false positives are generated, but that has relatively little evolutionary cost when compared to being much less likely to be scoffed by a lion.
OK, people aren't getting eaten by lions regularly in most of the world nowadays - but once a trait is in the gene pool it doesn't get back out again easily.
I posted guff about just that early on in this thread.
Super short version is those risk adverse would see something vaguely bear/lion shaped, and leave it well alone. Whether it was such a beasty or just a lump of stuff? The risk adverse survive. The reckless might kick the lump, and so not always survive.
Caution is a beneficial approach. Whether that’s instinct or education, those who practice caution had a tendency not suffer largely avoidable death.
And Gullibility - which is an offshoot of basically rapid response to stimulus/information.
It's why we don't stand there and wait for the shadowy thing that "could" be a big cat to get close to confirm it. We accept very readily that FIRST impression that its a "big cat" in the shadows and we respond to that. It takes a LOT more information on the situation for us to change that first impression.
As noted, this is a good survival element to have because it makes us quicker to react to possible dangers and risky situations which boosts the chances of survival. Of course it has to be tempered otherwise we'd be jumping at everything and so forth, but it is right there in all of us
Overread wrote: Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.
Well, Loch Ness isn't isolated. It is open on both ends to the ocean.
Just for general conversation, we do need to consider when it comes to descriptions of Cryptids that we in the modern day are spoiled.
I know and have seen with my own eyes that Elephants exist. The same with Duckbilled Platypus.
Yet if you were to describe them to someone utterly unaware of their existence? They’d think you were having them on. Indeed the Duckbilled Platypus was originally considered a hoax, with a pelt and sketch sent to Great Britain subjected to all sorts of checks, including looking for stitches.
Narwhal’s are another one. Basically a sea unicorn, yet they absolutely do exist. And like Rhino horn, Narhwal tusks were once presented as Unicorn horns to royalty.
And so who knows what other creatures with bizarre and unique body plans might exist out there.
I’m going to be charitable and show my desire for genuine transparency and goodwill here and make the statement that I believe all of the comments in this thread are coming from a place genuinely interested in stimulating lively discussion. The alternative isn’t flattering, particularly if it reveals various positions that are argued to be more ‘truthful’ as actually those based in relative ignorance of the topic itself, so let’s proceed by covering some basic points that I think can be labeled ‘uncontroversial’ and easy to verify without much effort.
1. My stated aim opening this thread was to hear about other people’s ‘thoughts’ (stated clearly as such) on the issue of what is called ‘Bigfoot’. I stated I had some thoughts on the matter, and I stated I have spoken to some who claim to have had personal experiences with this ‘entity’ or ‘phenomenon’, and that is all I said. Nowhere did I state I had scientific propositions, anything approximating scientific theory, uncontroversial evidence or that I wished to provide a philosophical treatise on the nature of the scientific method. If people here have seen anywhere in my original post evidence of these things I am sorry you experienced such an event and can only speculate as to what that means. If they haven’t, and let’s face it they haven’t, then what has slowly unfolded over the course of this ‘discussion’ here represents either a misunderstanding, malice, or something else. I believe the nature of the possible ‘something else’ might indeed be found in the philosophy of science, but as I have been keen to reiterate, time and again, that is not and was never what this thread was opened with the intention to discuss, and I have reiterated that point to absurdity at this stage. I will ignore all attempts to steer the conversation in that direction, so do not take my silence on the matter as evidence of anything other than me not engaging with a topic I have explicitly reiterated I have no desire to get into the weeds about. If you are satisfied the lack of ‘empirical data’ means little more can be said on this topic and you are inclined to dismiss it as all bunk as a result I congratulate you on your steadfast commitment to this view and feel it is a very sensible position to take. It is NOT my position at all, for reasons I will out line.
2. I have stated, time and again, that the cultural phenomenon of ‘Bigfoot’ cannot, is not, and will not ever be reduced to an argument for the existence of a large unknown primate. This does not represent the phenomenon in question accurately at all. What IS an accurate representation of the phenomenon is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that for centuries human beings have been recounting stories of encounters with a large, often hairy, upright walking creature that seemingly can appear and disappear with ease in a host of environments leaving little else but footprints in its wake. Is that all? No, far from it. Accounts include descriptions of Bigfoot as apelike, more of a baboon shape, doglike, wolflike or something akin to an ‘ogre’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). Moreover, the accounts include descriptions of strange lights (yes, that is UAPs these days), the ‘oz’ effect, disorientation, electrical malfunction and a host of other bizarre events. Why is this important? Well in order to discuss a phenomenon you need to have a working appreciation of the claims that are being made regarding said phenomenon in the first place. So far in this thread I have seen individuals discussing the unlikelihood of a large primate wandering around parts of the Pacific Northwest or other isolated regions. That’s valid, and fun, and it might be true (I personally do not think that is what we are looking at) but let us all be clear here… such a view of the phenomenon of what is called ‘Bigfoot’ simply does not accurately represent the information in the cultural field we have readily available to all.
3. What is called ‘Bigfoot’ is closely associated with UAPs and other ‘woo’ amongst many interested parties actively discussing the topic. I think that point is made clear in the above section, but the meaning of that point is often lost by those who simply hear such a thing and immediately begin to drift off into a knee jerk desire to ‘deboonk’ the phenomenon. Why is this fact important? Well, because we have admissions by scientifically minded individuals that the study of UAPs has been actively undertaken by government entities for a very long time, with concomitant funding and the scandals you’d expect in such matters occasionally breaking into mainstream news. In fact, it is even more spectacular than that, we have a situation where ‘scientific’ interest in the issue is being publicly ‘admitted’ through the very social institutions whom the public turn to in order to gauge acceptable attitudes towards this subject. Furthermore, it has created a dichotomy (at least perceived amongst many) that science itself might be unable to fully account for some form of ‘phenomenon’ with which our institutions of government are claiming to be worthy of ‘study’. If the societal implications of this are lost on people here I admit defeat and indeed agree there is nothing worthy of discussion. See you all back in the Stone Age,
To put it succinctly, no outcome here, in turns of an explanation of what is actually going on, is particularly comfortable to contemplate,
Now, if it makes one more comfortable, we can agree to discuss what function such narratives surrounding ‘Bigfoot’ might serve either unconsciously or consciously to our social and cultural milieu, and I have no problem with that, but in the meantime I hope I have made my position here clearer, and I hope any misunderstandings can be laid to rest.
I suspect there are a few people here whose views I do not share at all, in fact I suspect I might find them severely lacking at a fundamental level, but let’s not act surprised about that. One can find the necessary clues as to the basis for such disagreements very very early on in this thread, and it is clear an exploration of those topics is not on the agenda, so in the interest of keeping this friendly and good natured, let’s see where we can agree.
I think you should read your first paragraph with fresh eyes, as if someone else wrote it, and ask yourself if you would want to have a conversation with the guy who wrote it.
Also, brevity is the soul of people reading past your first paragraph.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think you should read your first paragraph with fresh eyes, as if someone else wrote it, and ask yourself if you would want to have a conversation with the guy who wrote it.
Also, brevity is the soul of people reading past your first paragraph.
Not sure exactly what you’re getting at here Bob? I’m clarifying my position for those who have trouble understanding it, at least that is my intention. What strikes you as off?
I’m asking this genuinely. What is problematic here and I’ll make appropriate changes so as not to offend etc
Minor quibble:
Sasquatch being associated with UAPs and other "woo" phenomenon is fairly recent. I think it was early 2000s when it started getting linked together?
Kanluwen wrote: Minor quibble:
Sasquatch being associated with UAPs and other "woo" phenomenon is fairly recent. I think it was early 2000s when it started getting linked together?
Hey there Kanluwen, thanks for the response.
Beliefs among tribal people of the Sasquatch include accounts that attribute the being to a host of magical and supernatural abilities not limited to but including shape shifting, the ability to slip into different spirit realms and a host of other bizarre things. A brief online search will produce a variety of avenues with which to explore that kind of anthropological data. It’s a topic that has been covered in a multitude of ways over the years.
As for the unverified ape hypothesis, well, it is fairly obvious I think that narrative has been popularized by our very own cultural milieu and the paradigm associated with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh just a quick aside, the reason I posted such a long explanation of my position and was so honest about where I stand and what I find interesting about this topic is precisely because I have enjoyed being a part of this forum so much.
I really love this place and taking part in the monthly competition is a genuine delight for me.
I know we might all not share the same view of the cosmos, reality and the nature of consciousness, but that is ok in my book.
I’m going to be charitable and show my desire for genuine transparency and goodwill here and make the statement that I believe all of the comments in this thread are coming from a place genuinely interested in stimulating lively discussion. The alternative isn’t flattering, particularly if it reveals various positions that are argued to be more ‘truthful’ as actually those based in relative ignorance of the topic itself, so let’s proceed by covering some basic points that I think can be labeled ‘uncontroversial’ and easy to verify without much effort.
1. My stated aim opening this thread was to hear about other people’s ‘thoughts’ (stated clearly as such) on the issue of what is called ‘Bigfoot’. I stated I had some thoughts on the matter, and I stated I have spoken to some who claim to have had personal experiences with this ‘entity’ or ‘phenomenon’, and that is all I said. Nowhere did I state I had scientific propositions, anything approximating scientific theory, uncontroversial evidence or that I wished to provide a philosophical treatise on the nature of the scientific method. If people here have seen anywhere in my original post evidence of these things I am sorry you experienced such an event and can only speculate as to what that means. If they haven’t, and let’s face it they haven’t, then what has slowly unfolded over the course of this ‘discussion’ here represents either a misunderstanding, malice, or something else. I believe the nature of the possible ‘something else’ might indeed be found in the philosophy of science, but as I have been keen to reiterate, time and again, that is not and was never what this thread was opened with the intention to discuss, and I have reiterated that point to absurdity at this stage. I will ignore all attempts to steer the conversation in that direction, so do not take my silence on the matter as evidence of anything other than me not engaging with a topic I have explicitly reiterated I have no desire to get into the weeds about. If you are satisfied the lack of ‘empirical data’ means little more can be said on this topic and you are inclined to dismiss it as all bunk as a result I congratulate you on your steadfast commitment to this view and feel it is a very sensible position to take. It is NOT my position at all, for reasons I will out line.
2. I have stated, time and again, that the cultural phenomenon of ‘Bigfoot’ cannot, is not, and will not ever be reduced to an argument for the existence of a large unknown primate. This does not represent the phenomenon in question accurately at all. What IS an accurate representation of the phenomenon is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that for centuries human beings have been recounting stories of encounters with a large, often hairy, upright walking creature that seemingly can appear and disappear with ease in a host of environments leaving little else but footprints in its wake. Is that all? No, far from it. Accounts include descriptions of Bigfoot as apelike, more of a baboon shape, doglike, wolflike or something akin to an ‘ogre’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). Moreover, the accounts include descriptions of strange lights (yes, that is UAPs these days), the ‘oz’ effect, disorientation, electrical malfunction and a host of other bizarre events. Why is this important? Well in order to discuss a phenomenon you need to have a working appreciation of the claims that are being made regarding said phenomenon in the first place. So far in this thread I have seen individuals discussing the unlikelihood of a large primate wandering around parts of the Pacific Northwest or other isolated regions. That’s valid, and fun, and it might be true (I personally do not think that is what we are looking at) but let us all be clear here… such a view of the phenomenon of what is called ‘Bigfoot’ simply does not accurately represent the information in the cultural field we have readily available to all.
3. What is called ‘Bigfoot’ is closely associated with UAPs and other ‘woo’ amongst many interested parties actively discussing the topic. I think that point is made clear in the above section, but the meaning of that point is often lost by those who simply hear such a thing and immediately begin to drift off into a knee jerk desire to ‘deboonk’ the phenomenon. Why is this fact important? Well, because we have admissions by scientifically minded individuals that the study of UAPs has been actively undertaken by government entities for a very long time, with concomitant funding and the scandals you’d expect in such matters occasionally breaking into mainstream news. In fact, it is even more spectacular than that, we have a situation where ‘scientific’ interest in the issue is being publicly ‘admitted’ through the very social institutions whom the public turn to in order to gauge acceptable attitudes towards this subject. Furthermore, it has created a dichotomy (at least perceived amongst many) that science itself might be unable to fully account for some form of ‘phenomenon’ with which our institutions of government are claiming to be worthy of ‘study’. If the societal implications of this are lost on people here I admit defeat and indeed agree there is nothing worthy of discussion. See you all back in the Stone Age,
To put it succinctly, no outcome here, in turns of an explanation of what is actually going on, is particularly comfortable to contemplate,
Now, if it makes one more comfortable, we can agree to discuss what function such narratives surrounding ‘Bigfoot’ might serve either unconsciously or consciously to our social and cultural milieu, and I have no problem with that, but in the meantime I hope I have made my position here clearer, and I hope any misunderstandings can be laid to rest.
I suspect there are a few people here whose views I do not share at all, in fact I suspect I might find them severely lacking at a fundamental level, but let’s not act surprised about that. One can find the necessary clues as to the basis for such disagreements very very early on in this thread, and it is clear an exploration of those topics is not on the agenda, so in the interest of keeping this friendly and good natured, let’s see where we can agree.
(Spoilered as it's such a large post) Firstly, I'll agree with BobtheInquisitor. While I believe you are sincere in wanting genuine discussion on this topic, your general tone could easily be taken as condescension if read in a certain way. Also, you write a lot of words but don't really say much in a concrete fashion, which has been my biggest frustration with your posts in this thread. There's a lot of vague allusions and comments that could be taken as accusations of dishonesty or statements of your own superiority, but it's difficult to know how to take them because they are so vague.
To take your points in order:
1. I think it's naive to expect people not to bring up concepts like how to evaluate evidence in a discussion about bigfoot. It's central to the whole topic, IMO. You don't get to dictate the exact direction a discussion takes just because you started the thread. These things evolve organically depending on the input of everyone involved. Asking for people's thoughts is fair enough, but if there's no more substance to them there isn't a lot to discuss. You were also the one to bring up scientism here, so it's a bit rich to then complain when discussion turns to the nature of science itself.
2. I don't think I agree with the first sentence here. I believe you think you've done that, but I find it difficult to identify much in the way of a positive statement from you about what bigfoot might be. There are a lot of vague assertions and suggestions, but nothing to really latch onto and have a discussion about. I think this post is by far the most specific in terms of outlining your actual position and it's come on page 6. That said, there are a couple of things that don't make sense to me here. You mention that many cultures have legends or folklore around bigfoot, or similar creatures. You then list a whole bunch of concepts and creatures that don't really seem particularly similar to me. We've got everything from bigfoot to dogman to some ill-defined "ogre". It's a bit of a stretch to say they're all the same thing, IMO. If you find concepts more valid the more cultures believe in them, what about thunder gods? Almost every culture has or had a belief in a thunder and/or lightning god at some point in their past. If we're looking purely at frequency of a belief occurring that would seem a more reasonable thing to believe in than bigfoot. Or it could just be an indication that human psychology shares certain qualities that lean towards the emergence of similar legends and tales. That says nothing about the truth of those claims.
3. This is all a bunch of vague unsubstantiated conjecture, ending in another of your comments that could be read as condescending. The mere existence of investigations into UAPs don't tell us anything about the validity of some of the more outlandish claims regarding their nature. It'd be surprising if there weren't investigations into UAPs, given the obvious national security risks of not doing so. Tying bigfoot to UAPs is also something that is indicative of common behaviour among people who believe in conspiracy theories. It's pretty well established that believers in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in multiple, unrelated, conspiracies. This seems like the same thing.
Tying bigfoot to UAPs is also something that is indicative of common behaviour among people who believe in conspiracy theories. It's pretty well established that believers in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in multiple, unrelated, conspiracies. This seems like the same thing.
That there was something seen flying, and nobody is quite sure what it is doesn’t mean Therefore Aliens.
Cliched as it might be? Could be experimental aircraft or drones, and by no means owned/built by a hostile country. After all, most western governments are firm allies, and all will have their own secret military gubbins either in development, or perfected and being kept hush-hush until it’s needed. And so a lip service investigation being made when someone saw something they weren’t supposed to, with the foregone conclusion “nope we don’t know either” isn’t outside the realms of possibility.
We can look to WW2 for some broadly similar film-flammery. The UK had developed radar, which allowed us to detect Luftwaffe air raids on their way over. Indeed it was effective use of Radar that gave the defending airforce a leg up during the Battle of Britain.
To cover this up? Propaganda posters about how Carrots (something Britain could grow in abundance during a period of rationing) let you see in the dark. Seemingly, German Intelligence fell for it. At least for long enough that the German ability to launch significant air raids via bombers was curtailed.
That there was something seen flying, and nobody is quite sure what it is doesn’t mean Therefore Aliens.
Cliched as it might be? Could be experimental aircraft or drones, and by no means owned/built by a hostile country. After all, most western governments are firm allies, and all will have their own secret military gubbins either in development, or perfected and being kept hush-hush until it’s needed. And so a lip service investigation being made when someone saw something they weren’t supposed to, with the foregone conclusion “nope we don’t know either” isn’t outside the realms of possibility.
We can look to WW2 for some broadly similar film-flammery. The UK had developed radar, which allowed us to detect Luftwaffe air raids on their way over. Indeed it was effective use of Radar that gave the defending airforce a leg up during the Battle of Britain.
To cover this up? Propaganda posters about how Carrots (something Britain could grow in abundance during a period of rationing) let you see in the dark. Seemingly, German Intelligence fell for it. At least for long enough that the German ability to launch significant air raids via bombers was curtailed.
Hahaha! I absolutely love that, and I think it gets to the heart of much of what goes on here. To be fair you do have to possess a particular kind of humor sometimes to get the funny side when it comes to these kinds of operations. I think what is going on in this modern equivalent is a little more serious though; in as much as it seems the objective, whatever may be behind it, is clearly at risk of further undermining general trust in our institutions at large.
Anyway, one of my favorite examples of psychological operations inventive use of cultural myth was the staging of, wait for it, vampire terror raids. Yep, special forces successfully employing the terror of the ‘undead’. Dracula warfare. It’s a thing… and it worked. Here’s a good write up:
Considering Drones and other things we have now I'm actually surprised we don't have a huge surge of "UFOs" that turn out to be drones and other things. Or at least enough of a surge for it to make the news.
Overread wrote: Considering Drones and other things we have now I'm actually surprised we don't have a huge surge of "UFOs" that turn out to be drones and other things. Or at least enough of a surge for it to make the news.
Yeah, but then in fairness to the many defense employees, scientists and journalists (acting on their behalf) much has been said about the number of reports ‘solved’ because of just this type of thing.
I think there was acknowledgement of an increase in reported sightings during the lockdowns that were attributed to drones too.
Apparently many of the elderly have been astonished to discover the concept of unmanned flight!
The world these days!
Automatically Appended Next Post: It’s interesting to me when you consider the simple manner in which genuine everyday folk fall prey to their own biases, biology or cultural circumstances but to be honest I don’t really think, at least in terms of really getting to the meat on the bone, it’s very enlightening when it comes to this bizarre situation we all find ourselves in.
Fun, definitely! No doubt.
Yet, if we take the same line of enquiry and turn it precisely outward, to the proponents of the alternative possibilities from within institutionalized structures of ‘belief’ things become richer in explanatory power.
Put simply, the creation of the ‘terror in the skies’ narrative and the priestly class who often unwittingly engender its cultural significance and reach; invoking fear both deliberately and unknowingly in a kind of grand, semi-autonomous gnostic sorcery project.
Yet, if we take the same line of enquiry and turn it precisely outward, to the proponents of the alternative possibilities from within institutionalized structures of ‘belief’ things become richer in explanatory power.
Put simply, the creation of the ‘terror in the skies’ narrative and the priestly class who often unwittingly engender its cultural significance and reach; invoking fear both deliberately and unknowingly in a kind of grand, semi-autonomous gnostic sorcery project.
Put simply? Seriously? This is a perfect example of what I've been critical of ITT. What are you trying to say in that last sentence? I'm not even sure it's a sentence at all. Can you try rewriting it in plain English in order to facilitate some useful discussion? Who are the "priestly class"? What "institutionalized structures of 'belief'" are you talking about? I have an idea, but because you remain so imprecise and vague I can't say for sure. What is the first sentence above talking about exactly? The whole thing reads like it's straight out of the postmodernism generator website.
Yet, if we take the same line of enquiry and turn it precisely outward, to the proponents of the alternative possibilities from within institutionalized structures of ‘belief’ things become richer in explanatory power.
Put simply, the creation of the ‘terror in the skies’ narrative and the priestly class who often unwittingly engender its cultural significance and reach; invoking fear both deliberately and unknowingly in a kind of grand, semi-autonomous gnostic sorcery project.
Put simply? Seriously? This is a perfect example of what I've been critical of ITT. What are you trying to say in that last sentence? I'm not even sure it's a sentence at all. Can you try rewriting it in plain English in order to facilitate some useful discussion? Who are the "priestly class"? What "institutionalized structures of 'belief'" are you talking about? I have an idea, but because you remain so imprecise and vague I can't say for sure. What is the first sentence above talking about exactly? The whole thing reads like it's straight out of the postmodernism generator website.
Hahaha! That did make me laugh! I remember once me and a friend actually wrote a pseudo ‘scientific’ analysis using nothing but the language of postmodernism slipping in terms like ‘hyper reality’ and ‘simulacra’ etc. It was actually pretty hilarious, a lot of people praised the jibberish we’d subjected them to as deeply insightful. The more things change, the more they stay the same I suppose.
Anyway, the ‘structures of belief’ refer to the practical business of ‘worldview building’ (or Weltanschauungskrieg) in psychological operations and social engineering endeavors. You’re right to point out much of that employs psychobabble jibberish (postmodernist nonsense) it’s actually an old gnostic trick at its core. The sorcery comment is inspired by that fact.
It goes deeper than that though, there is a blue on blue situation that can and does occur at the societal level if the lack of transparency inherent in the use of these tactics begins to erode the ability of even the most intelligent amongst us to discern fact from fiction. George Orwell and Arthur Koestler wrote a lot about that kind of thing.
Hope that helps clarify what I meant.
I was just discussing this with my partner and she suggested the ultimate clarification would be something like ‘nonsense in = nonsense out’. I’m sorry my language can be a little verbose at times, it can be a little frustrating for people and I need to work on that for sure.
You don’t sound like a post modernist. You sound like a politician who wants to assure his crazy base he’s with them while evading saying anything specific enough for his opponents to nail him down.
Also, your last post makes me wonder if you’ve even graduated high school. You talk about science and education like everything you’ve learned about it came from YouTube “destroyed!!!” videos. There’s a famous quip that William F Buckley sounds like a dumb person’s idea of a smart person. You’re posting like a teenager’s idea of an educated person.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, I am working on a longer reply to your earlier post because you asked me to.
As am I. I’ve outlined clearly what it is I meant in the earlier post and provided specific terminology in some examples. Very specific.
Look, I think I’m done here.
Given the allusions to my character I have endured several times now, even after having made genuine attempts to clarify and further communicate, I have no faith truly open discussion is actually wanted or desired here.
You might have found the above people to have good character, and I’m sure that’s true in your experience. Mine is evidently different.
You are not communicating clearly. That is not to say you're a bad person or anything of the sort, just that your words have failed to effectively get your point across.
I am sorry this has degenerated into such a state and it makes me genuinely sad as I have so enjoyed my interactions in this forum up until this point.
I’ve been accused directly of trolling, being a liar, being uneducated or somehow lacking intellectual honesty and generally a host of pretty unpleasant stuff. I’ve tried with an open heart to address these comments, even in good humor, but it doesn’t seem to be enough.
I don’t want to engage with anyone here on this topic anymore.
XvArcanevX wrote: I’m going to be charitable and show my desire for genuine transparency and goodwill here and make the statement that I believe all of the comments in this thread are coming from a place genuinely interested in stimulating lively discussion. The alternative isn’t flattering, particularly if it reveals various positions that are argued to be more ‘truthful’ as actually those based in relative ignorance of the topic itself, so let’s proceed by covering some basic points that I think can be labeled ‘uncontroversial’ and easy to verify without much effort.
1. My stated aim opening this thread was to hear about other people’s ‘thoughts’ (stated clearly as such) on the issue of what is called ‘Bigfoot’. I stated I had some thoughts on the matter, and I stated I have spoken to some who claim to have had personal experiences with this ‘entity’ or ‘phenomenon’, and that is all I said. Nowhere did I state I had scientific propositions, anything approximating scientific theory, uncontroversial evidence or that I wished to provide a philosophical treatise on the nature of the scientific method. If people here have seen anywhere in my original post evidence of these things I am sorry you experienced such an event and can only speculate as to what that means. If they haven’t, and let’s face it they haven’t, then what has slowly unfolded over the course of this ‘discussion’ here represents either a misunderstanding, malice, or something else. I believe the nature of the possible ‘something else’ might indeed be found in the philosophy of science, but as I have been keen to reiterate, time and again, that is not and was never what this thread was opened with the intention to discuss, and I have reiterated that point to absurdity at this stage. I will ignore all attempts to steer the conversation in that direction, so do not take my silence on the matter as evidence of anything other than me not engaging with a topic I have explicitly reiterated I have no desire to get into the weeds about. If you are satisfied the lack of ‘empirical data’ means little more can be said on this topic and you are inclined to dismiss it as all bunk as a result I congratulate you on your steadfast commitment to this view and feel it is a very sensible position to take. It is NOT my position at all, for reasons I will out line.
2. I have stated, time and again, that the cultural phenomenon of ‘Bigfoot’ cannot, is not, and will not ever be reduced to an argument for the existence of a large unknown primate. This does not represent the phenomenon in question accurately at all. What IS an accurate representation of the phenomenon is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that for centuries human beings have been recounting stories of encounters with a large, often hairy, upright walking creature that seemingly can appear and disappear with ease in a host of environments leaving little else but footprints in its wake. Is that all? No, far from it. Accounts include descriptions of Bigfoot as apelike, more of a baboon shape, doglike, wolflike or something akin to an ‘ogre’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). Moreover, the accounts include descriptions of strange lights (yes, that is UAPs these days), the ‘oz’ effect, disorientation, electrical malfunction and a host of other bizarre events. Why is this important? Well in order to discuss a phenomenon you need to have a working appreciation of the claims that are being made regarding said phenomenon in the first place. So far in this thread I have seen individuals discussing the unlikelihood of a large primate wandering around parts of the Pacific Northwest or other isolated regions. That’s valid, and fun, and it might be true (I personally do not think that is what we are looking at) but let us all be clear here… such a view of the phenomenon of what is called ‘Bigfoot’ simply does not accurately represent the information in the cultural field we have readily available to all.
3. What is called ‘Bigfoot’ is closely associated with UAPs and other ‘woo’ amongst many interested parties actively discussing the topic. I think that point is made clear in the above section, but the meaning of that point is often lost by those who simply hear such a thing and immediately begin to drift off into a knee jerk desire to ‘deboonk’ the phenomenon. Why is this fact important? Well, because we have admissions by scientifically minded individuals that the study of UAPs has been actively undertaken by government entities for a very long time, with concomitant funding and the scandals you’d expect in such matters occasionally breaking into mainstream news. In fact, it is even more spectacular than that, we have a situation where ‘scientific’ interest in the issue is being publicly ‘admitted’ through the very social institutions whom the public turn to in order to gauge acceptable attitudes towards this subject. Furthermore, it has created a dichotomy (at least perceived amongst many) that science itself might be unable to fully account for some form of ‘phenomenon’ with which our institutions of government are claiming to be worthy of ‘study’. If the societal implications of this are lost on people here I admit defeat and indeed agree there is nothing worthy of discussion. See you all back in the Stone Age,
To put it succinctly, no outcome here, in turns of an explanation of what is actually going on, is particularly comfortable to contemplate,
Now, if it makes one more comfortable, we can agree to discuss what function such narratives surrounding ‘Bigfoot’ might serve either unconsciously or consciously to our social and cultural milieu, and I have no problem with that, but in the meantime I hope I have made my position here clearer, and I hope any misunderstandings can be laid to rest.
I suspect there are a few people here whose views I do not share at all, in fact I suspect I might find them severely lacking at a fundamental level, but let’s not act surprised about that. One can find the necessary clues as to the basis for such disagreements very very early on in this thread, and it is clear an exploration of those topics is not on the agenda, so in the interest of keeping this friendly and good natured, let’s see where we can agree.
1st paragraph: “I am going to be charitable…” right off the bat you are condescending and contemptuous. “The alternative isn’t flattering … [everyone else’s opinions are] those based in ignorance.” Come on, man. You don’t see how that immediately puts everyone else against you? It makes you come across like the worst kind of smug conspiracy theorist to call the world sheeple for believing Antarctica exists. “So let’s proceed…basic points…”. Yes, Professor Galaxy Brain, let’s. Would you be “charitable” to anyone addressing you with such condescension? I wouldn’t.
Paragraph numbered 1: you state you wanted to hear other people’s thoughts, but you sure seem more interested in dismissing other people and pushing your own. Comes across like you really just want to fluff yourself and feel clever.
You follow this up with an absurd amount of wish-washy word salad to basically say you reject our reality and replace it with your own. Really conducive to conversation.
Paragraph numbered 2: Bigfoot is real, but not a flesh and blood creature. Bigfoot is a conspiracy, possibly by the World Science Cabal in service of definitely-not-demons. Stupid sheeple.
If that’s not what you mean to imply, then you should take a stand and say what you do mean. Don’t beat around the bush. Don’t waffle. Don’t talk about what you don’t mean. make your sentences short and to the point.
Paragraph marked 3: Dismissing any sightings at all for any reason makes you sheeple. Science is a cult that has no answers, unlike my guru. Was that so hard?
Next paragraphs: Now that I have dismissed the reasonable, the only remaking explanations are disquieting. Choke on that, sheeple.
Let’s talk about the Bigfoot’s effect on man. Also, I really need a B- on this undergraduate-level essay.
So, here are my issues: constant condescension. Fine, we all think we’re right and other people are wrong. But generally most people also realize that laying it on so thick is counterproductive.
Constant evasiveness. If you can’t get to the point, then you don’t have one. The biggest sin in writing is wasting the reader’s time, and you would need a whole flock of scapegoats to expiate that one. You constantly move the conversation goal posts to throw everyone off whenever there’s any kind of consensus you don’t like. You try to control the thread through what looks like incompetent sealioning. It all comes back to the purpose of this thread not being a discussion of Bigfoot, but about what a clever person you are for seeing through the sham of verifiable reality. Added together, your posts are insufferable. But they don’t have to be.
Please, be direct. If you think Bigfoot is a CIA conspiracy to make the world atheist, just say that. It’s hard to respect someone who says so much without ever showing vulnerability by posting anything he truly believes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XvArcanevX wrote: I’m sorry you’re both struggling to understand what it is I’m saying.
As for the various attempts at derision and snide you are both engaging in; I think that speaks for itself.
I am giving back to you what you have given us for 6 pages, in terms of derision.
If everyone you meet is incapable of understanding your points, it’s not them. It’s you. You’re the problem, it’s you.
Seriously, though, this is one of your shortest and most direct posts, which is a big step up and I appreciate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: You are not communicating clearly. That is not to say you're a bad person or anything of the sort, just that your words have failed to effectively get your point across.
This, but also more than this.
There’s a reason I asked you to read your own paragraph as if someone else had addressed you in that manner. If you don’t like the way people are responding, ask yourself what in your posts they are responding that way to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see that you feel dogpiled and personally attacked. I apologize. My intention was to criticize only your communication style in the hope to help you communicate more clearly and less abrasively, and I was far too blunt.
it is within their range and they do occasionally come to shallower waters. There are old accounts of possible shark incidents in Scottish lochs.