Roots Of Denial

[Doc Holliday]

good point OKB.

 

.... imo, one of the biggest reasons that nerve gets touched is the whole cultural "boogie man" thing , you know ?

 

as a general rule were all told while growing up that ghosts / monsters  etc.  don't exist and its all in our imagination.... when all the folks you trust as a child tell you "no way" that's hard to ignore.

 

...but where it gets interesting is when  some of us get older and experience things that don't  jive with that. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow are you still under the impression that BF did exist in recent times but somehow died out and is now extinct?

You now state that you 'can no longer accept the possibility of BF'. How does this fit with your previous beliefs?

Hard to say as the one and only probable is the PGF.  But in light of the explosion of interest nationwide since coming up negative I firmly believe they are no more.  The mystery now is why we continue to feed into the idea to the point that the issue does what it does for us.

[Guest]

A very interesting concept, one that deserves a place in the puzzle.

Playing devil's advocate here, It would be hard to not balance the American "mastery over nature" evidence with the American, "respect for nature" evidence. Look at the acreage we have preserved in National Forests, National Parks, National Historic monuments, State Parks, Wilderness areas, etc. Look at the legislation we have on the books.

So, we also put a lot of stock in the other side of the equation.

One could argue both sides and do pretty well.

There is certainly a ton of evidence for our failure to treat the Native Americans right. It is clear, it is part of our history, not something we should be proud of, but something we should sure as heck teach, regularly, so as to avoid repeating ourselves.

As far as a connection to BF being part of that I don't think so. Frankly I don't think most people give the prior any more thought than they do the latter. I think the oral history of the tribes regarding the BF in their lands for longer than there has been a USA has been documented as well.

Since denial seems to be pretty common in all of the westernized cultures I don't think we are "special" in that sense of the word.

I think Hoaxers are a continual and growing problem. I find it ironic and disgusting that every time researchers gain ground with new technology the damned hoaxers find a way to twist it around and use the technology to muck up the works even more.

Humanity en masse choosing to ignore deny the possibility doesn't surprise me in the least.

Look at what else people deny.

They see reservoirs drying up on TV, but there is no drought until no water comes from THEIR faucet, then by golly they want an explanation, and want to know who to blame...

I know you can think of lots of issues that are denied every day by otherwise sane people.

People deny things because it is simply convenient to do so. It fits the little world they've created for themselves.

Most people are creatures of habit, and they don't like anything that interrupts their little deal. Remember the Matrix movies?

Pushing the envelope of human knowledge takes many degrees of courage. First, it means being willing to admit you have fear, and then you have to be willing to overcome it. Then, it requires a willingness to face the unknown, with the very real chance doing so will get you laughed at, or worse, when the unknown becomes the known, and shifts the paradigm of our world.

Much worse.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Northfork

[Guest Divergent1]

In a matter of 500 years our thought processes have evolved immensely. During the renaissance, religion was a facet of everyday life. It was easier for the common man to imagine something like a monster or troll and accept that it was real without question because their religion said it could be real.  Now we have a new mechanism of thought that is derived from the scientific method: if I can't provide evidence for something then its' reality is questionable.

[ShadowBorn]

 

Very simple.  God is never something that inhabits our environment in a corporeal form.  God is always a spirit an intangible concept.  One believes in god because it is a choice to believe in something that is an ethereal being and neither expected to be physical or reported as physical.  Same with ghosts and spirits.  They do not inhabit this continuum as we do in the manner we do

Crow Logic

Ok you have this right! But now place them (BigFoot) as ethereal beings but in a physical way. beings able to fade in and out between worlds. Inhabit this continuum as we do in the manner we do. Just as spirits and ghost have no concept of space and time, so are these creatures the same in a physical form.

 

If these creatures were evolved they had to have been evolved after the great flood. since before the great flood all engineered creatures were destroyed by the flood. If one does research one will find hidden history that DNA research was once done before the great flood.

 

So these creatures had to evolved after the great flood, and some one or some thing mixed what ever DNA to create these creatures. If one is not willing to accept this then there lies the root of denial

 

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins. . .

Edited March 4, 2015 by ShadowBorn

[Cisco]

Crow Logic

Ok you have this right! But now place them (BigFoot) as ethereal beings but in a physical way. beings able to fade in and out between worlds. Inhabit this continuum as we do in the manner we do. Just as spirits and ghost have no concept of space and time, so are these creatures the same in a physical form.

 

If these creatures were evolved they had to have been evolved after the great flood. since before the great flood all engineered creatures were destroyed by the flood. If one does research one will find hidden history that DNA research was once done before the great flood.

 

So these creatures had to evolved after the great flood, and some one or some thing mixed what ever DNA to create these creatures. If one is not willing to accept this then there lies the root of denial

 

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins. . .

 

I don't think lack of belief in Sasquatch has anything to do with the acceptance of the great flood theory. The majority of Americans do not subscribe to this theory and still think Sasquatch is a myth.

 

Religious beliefs may play a small part in the unwillingness to accept the idea of an undiscovered, living primate. Although I don't necessarily think this would be true as we don't know that Sasquatch are directly related to man. At this point, its all theory and for all we know, they may be more closely related to raccoons.

 

The main reason people don't believe in the possibility of an undiscovered bipedal primate is because of the media and the publicity surrounding "experts" like Matt Moneymaker. People are always interested in Sasquatch stories but when they watch their local news and see people like MM or Tim Fasano, speaking with authority about an animal not recognized by mainstream science, it makes the entire subject matter seem ridiculous. You don't have to know a whole lot about Sasquatch to know that Matt Moneymaker has no way of proving any of his theories or ideas. Not to mention every Sasquatch story that appears in the media is sensationalistic and almost always results in a hoax.

 

We need more reputable public representatives that are willing to publicly state they know very little about these creatures but are hoping to learn more as further research is conducted. Instead we have Matt Moneymaker claiming, with full conviction, that all Sasquatch have "dog like" noses and respond to howls and wood knocks. If wood knocking and howling is our best chance of luring one in, then we can look forward to never learning more than we do today.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow Logic

Ok you have this right! But now place them (BigFoot) as ethereal beings but in a physical way. beings able to fade in and out between worlds. Inhabit this continuum as we do in the manner we do. Just as spirits and ghost have no concept of space and time, so are these creatures the same in a physical form.

 

If these creatures were evolved they had to have been evolved after the great flood. since before the great flood all engineered creatures were destroyed by the flood. If one does research one will find hidden history that DNA research was once done before the great flood.

 

So these creatures had to evolved after the great flood, and some one or some thing mixed what ever DNA to create these creatures. If one is not willing to accept this then there lies the root of denial

 

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins. . .

The ideas presented in the quoted post is sitting squarely in the center of the bulls eye that makes bigfoot a laughing matter for serious debate.   Does bigfoot dance on the heads of pins with angels when not popping into humans domain?

[Faenor]

I don't think there is fear or denial rooted in the disbelief in bigfoots existence. Most of the people I speak to at work or socially are college educated middle class. Almost all simply laugh at the idea of bigfoot at this point. Bigfoot has become something of a joke leading most to not even consider it as a possibility at this point. It gets put in he same box as the Loch Ness monster or fairy folk.

[Guest]

I don't think there is fear or denial rooted in the disbelief in bigfoots existence. Most of the people I speak to at work or socially are college educated middle class. Almost all simply laugh at the idea of bigfoot at this point. Bigfoot has become something of a joke leading most to not even consider it as a possibility at this point. It gets put in he same box as the Loch Ness monster or fairy folk.

Do you think this has to do with "Finding BF?" and maybe other cable stuff?

[Cisco]

There's no doubt in my mind that shows like Finding Bigfoot have been a detriment to the idea of Sasquatch as a serious scientific topic.

 

YouTube has not helped and neither have the many so called "experts" that have been popping up like flies, hoping for their own TV show.

 

On the flip side, we do have a lot more people interested in the subject than there were even just a few years ago.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I agree completely that there is a stigma associated with bigfoot, and that this is perpetuated by the way the topic has been presented in mainstream America. I also agree that hoaxers have caused an extreme amount of damage to the field. Your hypothesis regarding the idea of bigfoot going against the core beliefs of those who built the nation, Manifest Destiny, the taming of the frontiers, etc., is not only interesting, but to my knowledge is novel as well. I do not think it could be argued that modern citizens possess the same drive where discovery is concerned, because there is not much left to be discovered-- nothing where land frontiers are concerned anyway. But I could accept the idea that these beliefs, which were ingrained into the fibre of American consciousness in the past, have been perpetuated in a slightly different form into modern times. So basically the manifestation of this drive would vary with time, based on historical periods.

 

As you were saying, modern beliefs are basically the offspring of past beliefs, and mastery over nature is something that has only increased with time. With this increased mastery has come an inflated ego in my opinion. If this is accurate then I would think that the scientific nature of modern society has been instrumental in mutating that historical consciousness and drive into something akin to arrogance. Where once the people had only the drive to master nature, they were not arrogant enough to believe that they knew everything, is basically what I'm saying. Even though they knew they had mastered certain things, I imagine that the overall culture was much more open-minded. As time passes and more scientific theories are developed that fit what we observe around us, the more we dismiss ideas that do not conform to our understanding. Some may not see a problem with this, but there is a huge problem when it comes to things that either cannot be studied in conventional ways, or things that go so far beyond our conventional understanding that we just assume that they cannot be true. Our scientific understanding of the world, for all its greatness, is extremely limited. While we have advanced in material understanding we have not even learned to crawl where other things are concerned. But that is getting off topic.

 

You stated "I'd suggest that such a fundamental incompatibility in the psyche is even more debilitating for non-believers than the stigma that prevents science getting involved," and I think this is an extremely interesting idea. I have always assumed that the inability of scientists to entertain certain ideas was instrumental in influencing the opinion of many people, but if one stops and considers this point it becomes apparent that the average person has little interest in science, and thus they do not even have the exposure to scientific ideas that would be necessary to be influenced by such ideas. So their inability to entertain the idea of sasquatch likely comes from something else. The only other possibility, aside from the explanation you presented, is one of "common sense." To some people the idea that a creature as large as bigfoot could remain undiscovered for such a long time is preposterous. One idea to support that modern science plays no role in the average person's conclusions regarding bigfoot is the fact that they are not aware of what evidence is available to support the idea of bigfoot in the first place. So their reactions and beliefs where bigfoot is concerned are definitely "gut" reactions, whether stemming from personal "common sense" or from a place deeper within their mind, similar to what you are presenting. As I sit here and consider a variety of ideas, I have to say that your idea of some ingrained disbelief in the very possibility of sasquatch that stems from history and culture seems very plausible. It better explains the disbelief of the majority than does the idea that science has not accepted bigfoot therefore it must not be real, and it also makes at least as much sense, if not more, as the idea that common sense argues in favor of disbelief, because it does not go against common sense that an animal could survive for thousands of years and remain undiscovered- if that animal was intelligent and was actively seeking to avoid humans, which means that bigfoot is inadvertently seeking to avoid discovery of their species. So it is not their main goal, to remain undiscovered as a species, rather the lack of discovery is a side effect of every single sasquatch attempting to avoid individual discovery. There is a huge difference, although the result may appear the same from our end.

 

I would have to dismiss your hypothesis regarding an ingrained aversion to Native Americans or their way of life, and this having some effect on modern belief in sasquatch. It is quite true that these Natives were strongly disliked by many, and that the government and settlers moving west considered them as nothing more than a dangerous nuisance- an impediment to progress. Yet despite this fact I do not think such an aversion has carried over into modern times, not even on a subconscious level. The reason for my belief stems from the fact that the hatred for Native Americans was not something shared by the majority of the country, because the majority of the population, living outside of areas with a Native American presence, did not really have anything to fear- nor did the Natives interfere with these people's way of life. So at the government level there was the drive to expand and settle the west, so this dislike for Natives is explained in that regard. Those people actually pushing west would also have a dislike of Native Americans, but most other people did not have such a negative attitude, at least not to the point that it would have been ingrained into American consciousness. Especially not if such a belief is ingrained by being passed down through families with a dislike for Native Americans, because the majority of the population would not have had personal experience with Natives. Then of course there were people who understood why Native Americans were hostile to settlers, and who also understood and sympathized with the Natives because of the way they were treated. I don't know how many people had such sympathy and compassion for the plight of Native Americans, or if such a belief could also have been ingrained in the consciousness of a certain percentage of people, but it is worth consideration, given the ideas we are discussing. The only way I see the idea of an ingrained aversion to Native Americans being widespread in earlier times is through the spread of literature. If Natives were ill-treated in literature, and that literature reached the majority of the citizens in the country, then this would explain a dislike for Natives by those people who had no direct contact with them, or who would have had no opinion one way or the other. Similar to how some people have no real opinion on sasquatch, considering that they have no direct experience with sasquatch in any form. As I think about it I could have used a similar idea in my earlier statements related to disbelief in sasquatch being the result of "common sense." If such a belief were widespread then how could one account for the number of people who don't really have an opinion on sasquatch to begin with? In fact, how can we account for these people if there truly is a widespread subconscious disbelief in the idea of sasquatch, stemming from mastery over nature and other similar ideas? Could immigration into the US, which was especially prevalent in the 19th century, mean that the offspring of those immigrants do not hold the same type of subconscious or even conscious thoughts resulting from the experiences of our ancestors? This idea only holds true if such ideas were genetic. If on the other hand they were cultural, then in what environment one was raised will have a lot to do with it. I don't know, lol. My thinking is getting too complicated at this point. I give up. *raises white flag* It is not that the ideas are especially complicated, rather there are just too many related ideas that my brain keeps dragging into my internal reasoning. So I will close by saying that you should perhaps try to expand your hypotheses. I see nothing that directly contradicts your ideas either, which is always a good thing when presenting new ideas. But again, I don't know if you have a novel idea here, but even if that were not the case you could still expand on the idea. I suggest you propose a mechanism of action to explain how the past idea of expansion and mastery over nature still influence modern thinking. If this is true then there should be other areas where we are affected, not just related to bigfoot. There are likely scientific mechanisms of action that have already been postulated, so you could delve into another field to get ideas. Then from there you could use examples, and just generally expand your hypothesis into a working theory. It is not something that is really done where bigfoot is concerned, but I would like to see that change. I am all for the expansion of ideas by adding to them and further explaining them.

[roguefooter]

Then why do the vast amount of Americans believe in a God or Gods when there is a lack of proof regarding his/hers/its/their existence?  There is already a tremendous amount of scientific proof to support the possibility that Bigfoot could exist, whereas there is zero scientific proof to support any Gods could exist.  But yet, in America most people unquestionably/dogmatically/blindly/faithfully believe in a God or Gods.  

 

I personally don't believe anything at all without proof or evidence.  I don't even believe that Bigfoot exists.  However, I accept that it is possible for Bigfoot to exist because of the known science that can support the possibility.    

 

Unfortunately, I understand that Religion is a taboo subject here, so I won't say anymore on this topic...

 

Well given their paranormal abilities maybe the Bigfoots are Gods.

 

I wonder if anyone has cashed in on this idea yet?

Edited March 5, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest]

Yah, several times, the islanders treated Kong as a god right?

I think it's possible that the state of continuous conflict with various native american peoples allowed BF contacts to be "written off" as troublesome natives, and maybe inhibited discovery.... particularly as it was easier to believe there was one or two "really big indians" around leaving those footprints.

[Yuchi1]

Very simple.  God is never something that inhabits our environment in a corporeal form.  God is always a spirit an intangible concept.  One believes in god because it is a choice to believe in something that is an ethereal being and neither expected to be physical or reported as physical.  Same with ghosts and spirits.  They do not inhabit this continuum as we do in the manner we do.

 

I no longer accept the possibility of bigfoot because the statute of my limitation of belief without scientific hard and fast proof has run out.  As such it is no longer possible for me to maintain a belief is something that has had a stupendous amount of shadow of doubt leeway to be brought into the realm of fact.  Anybody can continue to believe it's up to them but at the end of the day the deck remains stacked very, very against it's existence.

Crow,

 

Your logic, apparently somewhat linear in trajectory omits one factor, prevalent in homo sapiens....love.

 

An example would be the soldier throwing him/herself onto the grenade in order to save the lives of his/her buddies...why?

 

This documented behavior appears to transcend the sterile evaulations of human behavior endemic in many forums where critical thought is foisted as the orders of the day, causing a gag reflex amongst the intellectuals therein.

 

Yours is the mindset of those who have not yet observed things that cannot be explained in academic terms for such an event is almost always such a powerful emotional & intellectual paradigm shift, the observer is forever transformed. Only those who have partaken of such exposure(s) truly know of whence I speak. The false prophets in this arena...are legion.

[Guest]

Thanks for the input, Jiggypotamus! 

 

Interesting comments on the thread, particularly regarding this idea that people will disbelieve certain things whether or not science agrees. Prime example: global warming. Science, on the whole, concludes that it is real, that humanity are causing this warming trend. However, this isn't enough to convince huge swathes of people. So even if mainstream science got behind Bigfoot, it might mean nothing for us!

 

It's made me think I should stop being so annoyed about scientists about a prevailing attitude of unwarranted cynicism; who can blame them? Instead, gentle encouragement might be the way forward.