Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So…. anyone got any thoughts on the subject?

I have a ton.

Even better, anyone had any experiences or know someone that has?

I do.

Be interested to hear the communities thoughts…

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)

Sure they exist, and they even have a movie coming out next month...

 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.

Pity though.

To be balanced though?

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.

https://youtu.be/tl4dFO4rNEI?si=iUMiHUMhRAtf3wWh

 JNAProductions wrote:

Was going to post exactly this.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

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.

It's quite close to home. Far more interesting are the giant cats roaming large metropolitan areas like Edinburgh here in Scotland.

Anyone remember this? Had quite the bit of interest at the time. Three times the size of a human.

Of course it was never actually confirmed on camera, dun dun dunn!

https://news.sky.com/story/police-officer-saw-big-cat-in-edinburgh-10356655

Here's another from the lothians (surrounding counties) thst was, apparently caught on camera.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/east-lothian-mum-overwhelmed-spots-24848552

A breeding population of home grown big cats? Awesome, if true!

Deadnight wrote:
It's quite close to home. Far more interesting are the giant cats roaming large metropolitan areas like Edinburgh here in Scotland.

Anyone remember this? Had quite the bit of interest at the time. Three times the size of a human.

Of course it was never actually confirmed on camera, dun dun dunn!

https://news.sky.com/story/police-officer-saw-big-cat-in-edinburgh-10356655

Here's another from the lothians (surrounding counties) thst was, apparently caught on camera.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/east-lothian-mum-overwhelmed-spots-24848552

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.

On the topic of big cats in the UK there is a fun video by a group of young men here:
https://youtu.be/m3aVeHazA8E?si=Gp5lAWhmkj_bUI-x

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:

https://road.cc/content/news/201554-cyclists-near-bristol-hunt-hyena-spotted-during-ride

Interesting times.

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.

Anyway, I like your observation there!

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.

 Gitzbitah wrote:


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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.

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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

In response to XvArcanevX.

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.

The first recorded “Kids these days” complaint dates from ancient Roman times.
It’s old hat, and basically never true.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The first recorded “Kids these days” complaint dates from ancient Roman times.
It’s old hat, and basically never true.

Except for when it demonstrably is:

https://www.science.org/content/article/playing-tools-and-weapons-was-normal-part-prehistoric-childhood

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.

My level of surprise is flat 0.