Jump to content

So Called "myth"


Guest alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alex/Makaya/Blue Bear, why would you ask Saskeptic, a known Bigfoot Skeptic, if he denies Bigfoot's existence?

May I ask why you continue to call me three seperate names at once? (Alex is fine).

Anyway's, being a skeptic does not mean that you automatically dismiss sasquatch as nonsense, it could mean that one just need's to see more evidence of it's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask why you continue to call me three seperate names at once? (Alex is fine).

You signed up as Makaya and as Alex, so I figured if you could post as multiple people, I might as well call you multiple people. Makaya has been deleted now, but It won't be long before Blue Bear shows up I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering about that too. "Deny" is a funny word in this context. I guess the connotation is that there is compelling evidence that has been brought forth and which is accepted by the great majority of relevant professionals, but that I for some reason reject. A corollary may be found in the climate change skeptics often labeled "deniers" by those who stress the consensus of mainstream climatologists as irrefutable.

The problem of course is that there is no consensus among scientists that there is any compelling evidence for bigfoot at all. The consensus among mainstream science regarding bigfoot is near universal laughter followed by a more measured "I'd be happy to consider it further but there just hasn't been any compelling evidence produced to justify belief in the existence of such creatures."

That's my position too, and that I won't deny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway's, being a skeptic does not mean that you automatically dismiss sasquatch as nonsense, it could mean that one just need's to see more evidence of it's existence.

I don't need "more"; "any" will do. Been waiting a long time . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people do see, smell, or hear something that their brains interpret as bigfoot, even though it's not. Yes, a bear looks little like a bigfoot. But what if you see part of a bear (or a moose or a cow or a horse or an elk or a bison) from a funny angle under shadowy conditions or something? Suddenly that "obvious" bear becomes a lot less obvious.

So way down on the list of potential explanations for an anecdotal account would be the possibility that the person actually witnessed a real bigfoot. Other explanations are simply far more likely and need to be carefully considered and eliminated before ascribing a bigfoot cause to some unusual event.

There is a class of sightings made by experienced woodsman, whom by their own admission were skeptical of bigfoots existence up until their sighting. They, like many other people would not be likely to jump to the conclusion they had seen a bigfoot if they did not see it perfectly clear. It is actually a knock against skeptical people who have sightings for someone to second guess them and say they were victims of their own wishful thinking. It's kind of hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I believe that mankind everywhere is historically pre-disposed to believing in forest-men, giants and human-like monsters that dwell in dark places. Every culture seems to have such a myth. Woodwoses - wild hairy men, were reported in England and Europe until well into the 16th century. And once you tell people that a forest has got wild men in it, you can be certain that you'll get people coming back with wide-eyes and ashen faces, telling tales of having seen them. This, I suspect, would hold true even if you'd made the wild-men story up yourself. You can't keep a good myth down.

This is exactly what I think.

The mechanism by which these myths transcend different cultures and moments in time has been thoroughly explored in the 20th Century in the work of such men as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. It's not at all surprising that the Bigfoot myth keeps reinventing itself and popping up all over the place: it's in the nature of 'hairy man' archetype to do exactly that. It is not evidence of a flesh and blood creature in the woods, though it need not necessarily exclude such a possibility either.

I don't like it when people use the word 'myth' like it was a dirty word. There are 'true' myths, it's not a synonym for a fairytale or a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a class of sightings made by experienced woodsman, . . .

These people are immune to lying, substance abuse, mental illness, optical illusion, hallucination, and ever being wrong about what they claim to have experienced?

The fact that some people are more experienced in the field in others does not suggest that their brain function is qualitatively different. In fact, I'd wager that "woodspeople" are more likely than city folk to spread bigfoot mythology. For one, their outdoor experience lends an air of matter-of-factness and credibility (e.g., "I've seen a lot of bears and this was no bear!"). They're also more likely (at least pre-Internet) to be familiar with local legends originated by Native Americans and others. Here are a few experienced woodsmen who come to mind . . .

Ray Wallace

Cliff Crook

Paul Freeman

Roger Patterson

edited to fix parenthesis

Edited by Saskeptic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it is amazing how quickly people rule out the possibility of Bigfoots existence without really thinking about how easy it would be for a large semi-intelligent animal to stay hidden in the forest. If every town, city, road and human populated piece of property in the United States was put together in one place, it would fit inside of texas.

And yet Zoologists become very excited if a new subspecies of Salamander is discovered in the USA, even though, even to the trained eye it appears almost indistinguishable to the common species of Salamander that everyone knows.

How could such a large and dramatic a creature as a Sasquatch, the apex predator, King of the Woods, have remained unknown to Science in the world's most technologically advanced nation in 2010?

When I read comments like these I'm reminded of the poster Fox Mulder used to have over his desk at the FBI: "I want To Believe".

Sasquatch, I'm not having a dig, I want to believe too. I think that most of the skeptical types on this forum do too, that's why they hang around here so much, like the weird, drunk uncles at the wedding doing the embarrassing dancing (as I think Kitakaze once observed) :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Sasquatch is the apex predator, even if it is real.

"There are 'true' myths, it's not a synonym for a fairytale or a lie." --Strick

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth

–noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution

Synonyms

fabrication

imagination

invention

tradition

allegory

creation

delusion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people are immune to lying, substance abuse, mental illness, optical illusion, hallucination, and ever being wrong about what they claim to have experienced?

The fact that some people are more experienced in the field in others does not suggest that their brain function is qualitatively different. In fact, I'd wager that "woodspeople" are more likely than city folk to spread bigfoot mythology. For one, their outdoor experience lends an air of matter-of-factness and credibility (e.g., "I've seen a lot of bears and this was no bear!"). They're also more likely (at least pre-Internet) to be familiar with local legends originated by Native Americans and others. Here are a few experienced woodsmen who come to mind . . .

Ray Wallace

Cliff Crook

Paul Freeman

Roger Patterson

edited to fix parenthesis

If just one bigfoot were proven to exist, what in your line of thinking above would change? How many (in terms of percentage)of the lies, hallucinations, and mis id's would then become credible honest reports? Would bigfoot still be a myth to you?

BTW there are city folk whom are experienced woodsman with sightings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If just one bigfoot were proven to exist, what in your line of thinking above would change?

Relatively little. The vast majority of anecdotal accounts would still be chalked up to the explanations I described. Finding a real bigfoot tomorrow would not preclude people from lying, seeing things, etc., so it would not be as simple as "Well I guess all those people really did see bigfoot!" Each account would need to be reviewed on its own merit, and my default position on each one would remain skeptical. There are several examples of stories I'd want to revisit very carefully (e.g., SquatchCommando's), several that would still be much more readily explained by mundane events (e.g., Dr. Johnson's), and several that would still be complete hogwash (e.g., Albert Ostman's). Oh, and the PGF would still be a hoax.

So yes, the mythology of bigfoot would remain much bigger than the reality of the biological basis for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need "more"; "any" will do. Been waiting a long time . . .

"more" is not the problem any way, is it? I think it's the "type" of evidence that's missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yes, the mythology of bigfoot would remain much bigger than the reality of the biological basis for it.

Yet with proof we would have a valid, natural, biological and mundane explanation for the myth. How would it then be any different than a bear sighting? We don't accuse people of not knowing their wildlife when they see bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShadowPrime

If BF was proven to be real tomorrow, most sightings would, in my opinion, become largely irrelevant. A historical curiosity. Who, really, would care?

I am sure someone would revist the PGF, given its fame/infamy. But beyond that, and maybe a handful of other "famous" cases, why bother? To what end? Why not devote time, energy, resources, to learning about this newly-discovered animal?

Shadow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the study of the creatures would still be somewhat reliant on the sightings, for potential locations of interest, but I was more interested in what attitude would then be directed towards witnesses. I can understand eliminating possible mistakes or mis ID's but to leave no door open for honest reporting would be self-defeating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...