norseman Posted May 25, 2011 Admin Posted May 25, 2011 I think you hit on a significant point. People do seem more prone to attribute the amazing to things they don't understand. Once that lack of understanding is removed it probably would kill off some of the "magic" so to speak. Still though I can't help but think that as Ray said some would continue to make claims based not on understanding but on belief. A variation of the red panda effect fueled by belief/want perhaps. I think talking about the human race as a whole needs very badly to "believe" in things. Whether that be religion, cultural myths or science fiction for that matter. Our self awareness exists on a plane in which our bodies cannot go, whether that's heaven in the sky, the bottom of the ocean, or Mars. And our minds are very good at filling out the large gaping holes in our knowledge. It's what makes us human, and who knows? Quantum physics anymore is getting about as strange as any religion or sci fi book.......
Guest Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 BitterMonk, You are trolling in this thread because it seems your intention is to embarrass some members by using logic. Well it seems the logic, if you want to call it that, failed miserably but I give Bittermonk kudo's for stirring the pot and keeping me entertained in the process. You know Florence Nightingale rejected the germ theory despite the evidence presented and refused to wash her hands......you get these die hards in every walk of life and in all kinds of situations. There will always be that 10% that is contrary despite what you show them, isn't that just a shame?
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 There will always be that 10% that is contrary despite what you show them, isn't that just a shame? I'd be curious to know what you think I'm being contrary about? Do you think it is less or more likely that once discovered the sasquatch won't match all the alleged traits ascribed to it? If you think it less likely what do you think will happen to those ascribed traits that aren't present? Will they just vanish into the ether?
Guest Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 I'd be curious to know what you think I'm being contrary about? Do you think it is less or more likely that once discovered the sasquatch won't match all the alleged traits ascribed to it? If you think it less likely what do you think will happen to those ascribed traits that aren't present? Will they just vanish into the ether? You aren't contrary, I'm talking about people in general. I'm sure you work with a few, I know I do. I'm absolutely certain whatever we find won't match everything that has been reported simply because I'm not 100% percent positive that we are dealing with just one species. As for whether the missing reported traits would disappear, I bet you would have less reports of off the wall things when there is a concrete frame of reference for what the folks are seeing.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 As for whether the missing reported traits would disappear, I bet you would have less reports of off the wall things when there is a concrete frame of reference for what the folks are seeing. I'm sorry for misreading your post. Going back and rereading it I get your meaning. I also think you're right on with your last point, although I personally don't think we would see those off the wall reports completely disappear.
Guest Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 Oh no never, if not bigfoot, it will be about another cryptid that was previously mis-identified as bigfoot.
indiefoot Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 So you have a Bigfoot on the autopsy table and all the organs are identified, are we expecting them to declare that they found a pair of lungs and a pair of kidneys, but no pair of normals.
Guest gershake Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 Well it seems the logic, if you want to call it that, failed miserably but I give Bittermonk kudo's for stirring the pot and keeping me entertained in the process. You know Florence Nightingale rejected the germ theory despite the evidence presented and refused to wash her hands......you get these die hards in every walk of life and in all kinds of situations. There will always be that 10% that is contrary despite what you show them, isn't that just a shame? WIki says: "It is commonly stated that Nightingale 'went to her grave denying the germ theory of infection'. Mark Bostridge in his recent biography[12] disagrees with this, saying that she was opposed to a precursor of germ theory known as 'contagionism' which held that diseases could only be transmitted by touch. Before the experiments of the mid-1860s by Pasteur and Lister, hardly anyone took germ theory seriously and even afterwards many medical practitioners were unconvinced. Bostridge points out that in the early 1880s Nightingale wrote an article for a textbook in which she advocated strict precautions designed, she said, to kill germs. Nightingale's work served as an inspiration for nurses in the American Civil War. The Union government approached her for advice in organizing field medicine. Although her ideas met official resistance, they inspired the volunteer body of the United States Sanitary Commission."
Incorrigible1 Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 Before the experiments of the mid-1860s by Pasteur and Lister, hardly anyone took germ theory seriously and even afterwards many medical practitioners were unconvinced. Bostridge points out that in the early 1880s Nightingale wrote an article for a textbook in which she advocated strict precautions designed, she said, to kill germs. Nightingale's work served as an inspiration for nurses in the American Civil War. The Union government approached her for advice in organizing field medicine. Although her ideas met official resistance, they inspired the volunteer body of the United States Sanitary Commission." Something rather screwy with the timeline, here. The American Civil War ran 1861-65.
Guest Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 Wiki isn't always exactly accurate but, to be honest, I haven't read not one thing about Florence since I was in nursing school 25 years ago. It didn't cross my mind to go back and check.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 Oh no never, if not bigfoot, it will be about another cryptid that was previously mis-identified as bigfoot. I could see that happening. "Oh you found that bigfoot. That's not our Bigfoot."
Guest Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 Oh no..... It's that time of year again. Don't attempt that...I'm not saying I can...
Guest shelley7950 Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 And, for what it's worth, I think the answer to the original question would be "no"....finding a sasquatch with completely normal biological functions would NOT change the minds of the supernatural believers...someone once famously said that there are no haunted places, only haunted people...meaning the perception of paranormal events originates in the psyche of the observer, not in the external environment...so changing the external environment (the discovery of a "normal" sasquatch) would not change the inner workings of the "haunted" observer... I noted in another thread that when the owners of a long term habituation site moved several miles away the sasquatches miraculously picked up and moved with them, abandoning the old site and settling in at the new location. I rest my case....
Sasfooty Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) I noted in another thread that when the owners of a long term habituation site moved several miles away the sasquatches miraculously picked up and moved with them, abandoning the old site and settling in at the new location. I rest my case.... And a cat followed it's owner from New York to California, which I'm sure you will consider to be "several miles". I rest my case...... "Psi trailing" is a term that Dr. Joseph Rhine of Duke University coined to refer to animals managing to locate their owners after the owner moves away and leaves the animal behind. He documented a number of cases of this phenomenon, in all cases the animal had to have some distinguishing mark, abnormality, or previous injury by which the owner could positively identify the pet, in order to rule out any lookalike situations. In one case a cat followed its owner, a veterinarian, from New York to California. The cat settled down immediately in the "old cat's" favorite chair, and, after taking x-rays, the new cat also happened to have the same physical abnormality as the "old cat."Dr. Myrna Milani, D.V.M., offers a few explanations for this phenomenon. One is that perhaps there is some dis-equilibrium when closely bonded creatures are separated, something that could one day be explained with something similar to Bell's Theorem. Bell's Theorem proposed that all electrons function in pairs, with each electron spinning in the opposite direction of the other electron. The physicist Bell speculated that if you change the spin of one electron, the other electron would "sense" it and alter its direction accordingly to the one whose spin was altered. When scientists began doing experiments in space, this was one of the first things they tested. And sure enough, when the spin of one electron taken into space was changed, its matched electron back on earth immediately altered its spin correspondingly. If we mammals are made of cells, molecules, and atoms, maybe the bond between two creatures is not just with the "heart" but also some sort of "rhythm" on an "actual" cellular or atomic level that is disrupted when the physical bond is disrupted? http://sonic.net/~pauline/psych.html Edited to add link. Edited May 25, 2011 by Sasfooty
Guest shelley7950 Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 No, no Sasfooty, you missed my point...I don't deny that animals are capable of traveling long distance over unknown terrain (although I need to point out that sasquatches are not domestic cats and are not "owned" by the property owner), rather I meant (and please don't take this personally--I don't know you and haven't had your experiences) that there is a certain group of people that interpret completely neutral environmental cues as the presence of sasquatch, so wherever they go, the sasquatches will be with them---in other words, they are the source of the squatch, not the environment...
Recommended Posts