Bbc Article: Why Don't People See The Yeti Anymore?

[JDL]

What, no wings?

Though the packs.....from a distance......

[norseman]

No Pegamules no.....LOL.

[JDL]

You'd think, with all the Pegasi flying around and the abundance of donkeys.......

[Guest Crowlogic]

The Greco-Roman gods  no longer have an influence on people's beliefs.  Cultures and species grow up, they mature and one of the hallmarks of  cultural maturity is the abandonment of woo.  It sucks but that's most likely what's going on in Yetiville.

[norseman]

^^^^^ Huh?

Did you read Cliff's account of Nepal?

Roman Greco gods? None there and never were. Do you mean Buddhism?

And if you are right then how do you account for New Jersey sightings?

[dmaker]

The Greco-Roman gods was a comparison to Western Civ. Suggesting, I assume, that Nepal is growing up and beginning to abandon woo. 

 

NJ sightings? Bigfoot seems to be at the front of a woo renaissance. More and more of the world is being explained by science as our civilization marches forward. Perhaps bigfoot is a way for some to clutch on to old beliefs. To retain some mystery in the world. And for some, I am sure there are more, uh, let's just say "spiritual" motivations in keeping a belief in bigfoot alive. 

 

The popularity of the bigfoot myth indicates a regression into woo for some.

 

But, that was a great question, Norse. This is precisely what interests me about bigfoot. Why do people in North America insist on keeping this myth alive? Some even going to great, elaborate lengths to do so. Good question.

Edited November 11, 2015 by dmaker

[MIB]

Why do people in North America insist on keeping this myth alive?

 

dmaker ...

 

why do you persist in the myth that bigfoot is just a myth?    

 

MIB

Edited November 11, 2015 by MIB

[dmaker]

MIB

 

Probably because there is no hard evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot. All the characteristics of this phenomenon indicate social construct.

Edited November 11, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

The Greco-Roman gods was a comparison to Western Civ. Suggesting, I assume, that Nepal is growing up and beginning to abandon woo. 

 

NJ sightings? Bigfoot seems to be at the front of a woo renaissance. More and more of the world is being explained by science as our civilization marches forward. Perhaps bigfoot is a way for some to clutch on to old beliefs. To retain some mystery in the world. And for some, I am sure there are more, uh, let's just say "spiritual" motivations in keeping a belief in bigfoot alive. 

 

The popularity of the bigfoot myth indicates a regression into woo for some.

 

But, that was a great question, Norse. This is precisely what interests me about bigfoot. Why do people in North America insist on keeping this myth alive? Some even going to great, elaborate lengths to do so. Good question.

 

If Bigfoot is nothing more than a myth, it certainly blows out of the water, Crow's theory that science is marching forward and dragging Nepal kicking and screaming along with it.

 

I mean Bigfoot is a pretty popular subject in the USA and Canada these days. Surely peoples living in advanced civilizations such as these would be immune to that kind of woo right?

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If Bigfoot is nothing more than a myth in this day and age? As popular as it is? I would have to say that this myth is based in fact historically.

 

And there is probably a dang good reason why modern humans get a cold chill down their spine when they enter dark timber with no other humans around.....it's apart of how our Pleistocene brain is hard wired for survival.

 

Lots of "ape" men running around in the forests of Europe and Asia 50,000-100,000 years ago. And they probably were not very kind to our ancestors.

[MIB]

MIB

 

Probably because there is no hard evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot. All the characteristics of this phenomenon indicate social construct.

 

My boss comes in in the morning and asks how things are going.   I say "well, other than the stuff that is broken everything is running smoothly."    Same thing applies here.    After you get done dismissing the hard evidence of track casts, hair, scat, photographs, audio, etc (remember: **evidence**, not **proof**), then sure, you can "there's no hard evidence".  But the premise you make the statement from is inherently false.   The hard evidence absolutely **does** exist and it is fundamentally dishonest to claim otherwise.

 

MIB

[Guest]

Slow down there MIB,

I'll give you alleged track casts, audio and pictures BUT scat, hair and etc have never been collected. If I am mistaken please provide a link confirming this.

[norseman]

It's my understanding that morphologically speaking primate hairs that have been uncut have been collected in the US. Those hairs lack a medulla and DNA testing has not been successful.

 

Not sure about scat.

[dmaker]

The uncut nonsense means nothing. On any given day there will be hairs that fall of off any one of us that have yet to be cut.  The hair fell before it had a chance to be cut. 

 

This does not mean bigfoot.

 

 

Hard evidence is something that lacks ambiguity. That could only be explained by bigfoot. There is nothing like that right now.

[MIB]

Nakani -

 

Anything submitted as evidence *is* evidence ... even if it is discredited in testing / examination.   And yes, purported hair, blood, saliva, and scat have been submitted and tested. 

 

Examples: anything submitted to Sykes for testing (hair) is evidence or anything submitted to Ketchum for testing (blood, saliva, hair, "steak", etc) is evidence.   Examining scat makes it evidence.   Material examined / discussed in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science was evidence.   If you want specific links, you can Google as well as I can.  

 

Semantics matter.  If you are implying "substantiated evidence" when saying "evidence", that's a different thing.   Substantiated evidence is de facto proof of existence, and if existence were proven, we wouldn't be having the discussion, right?    

 

dmaker -

 

Anything TANGIBLE submitted as evidence **IS** hard evidence.   The only examples of evidence I wouldn't call "hard" evidence would be anecdotes and data analysis.   If there's a physical thing there to look at, it absolutely is hard evidence.   You are trying to sneak the word "proof" in there without using it which is inherently dishonest and manipulative.

 

MIB

Edited November 11, 2015 by MIB

[dmaker]

No. If you are calling bear scat bigfoot evidence, then you are, obviously, incorrect. Many things were sent to Sykes and all ended up being common animals. You cannot call those bigfoot evidence. 

 

By your logic, I could pick up a piece of cat poop and call it bigfoot poop and until proven otherwise, it is bigfoot poop and will go down in history, in your logic, as collected bigfoot evidence?  How can you even say those things with a straight face?