Jump to content

The other side of the coin


vinchyfoot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Look where the topic came from. "Distraction" was the goal. I'd as soon light his alter on fire as let him go on freely.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

No comment. I get in enough hot water around here as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

No, but it is on the verge of exposing yet another discipline of "science" that is failing within the realm of this phenomenon; psychology. That would be a fun discussion, too, since psychology is failing so completely in so many other ways, too.........

If Bigfoot is a real animal, which the evidence suggests, then psychology will have little to no place as a research methodology. If Bigfoot is a spectre, a figment of man's collective imagination then psychology will have a great deal of relevancy. 

 

But spectres do not leave trackways and DNA evidence. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

If Bigfoot is a real animal, which the evidence suggests, then psychology will have little to no place as a research methodology. If Bigfoot is a spectre, a figment of man's collective imagination then psychology will have a great deal of relevancy.........

 

Correct. That is the premise of the OP.

 

Let's discuss........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Correct. That is the premise of the OP.

 

Let's discuss........

The last sentence of my above post. Trackways and DNA evidence. I think conclusively refutes the OP. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

I find the mechanism of a witness trying to fit the creature into something within the known natural world through some kind of mental gymnastics- and failing- far, far more interesting.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Correct. That is the premise of the OP.

 

Let's discuss........

 

I've always thought the Bigfoot phenomena is equally interesting whether it actually exists or not. Either there is a race of large, hairy apelike men living in the world undiscovered by science, or we as humans have some deep need to invent them and promulgate the invention of our imaginations.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Madison5716 said:

Native American peoples who had those legends far into their pasts had never seen an ape,

 

This is true. I thought of that afterwards and tried to edit, but it wouldn't let me. They would have had to make it a human/animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
41 minutes ago, Rockape said:

 

I've always thought the Bigfoot phenomena is equally interesting whether it actually exists or not. Either there is a race of large, hairy apelike men living in the world undiscovered by science, or we as humans have some deep need to invent them and promulgate the invention of our imaginations.


Like the pronghorn that runs so very fast for a cheetah that no longer exists?

 

IF Bigfoot is now a figment of our imagination? It’s because it is also a echo of ancient times.

 

We know Bigfoot like creatures existed in the fossil record. The question then simply becomes when and where.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

The last sentence of my above post. Trackways and DNA evidence. I think conclusively refutes the OP. 

 

I agree with you. Based upon existing evidence, I am personally convinced that they exist. But "science" disagrees, so IF they don't/didn't, there may be some type of phenomena that psychology can explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

I find the mechanism of a witness trying to fit the creature into something within the known natural world through some kind of mental gymnastics- and failing- far, far more interesting.

 

I think I roughly counted up the number of BFRO reports and came up to @ 6,000. Of course, just a percentage of those are sightings. The majority are footprints, howls, etc.

 

So how many more encounters are there that never saw the light of day? Another 25,000? Isn't the reluctance to report also a psychological factor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

I agree with you. Based upon existing evidence, I am personally convinced that they exist. But "science" disagrees, so IF they don't/didn't, there may be some type of phenomena that psychology can explain.

Yes, but as you and I both agree that is a very big IF. The only event that I can foresee that could potentially cause me to start having doubts that Bigfoot exists is if the Patterson-Gimlin Film is ever proven to be fake, as the PGF is (IMO) the single strongest piece of evidence we have. The other evidence adds to the PGF to make the species existence even more likely, but I consider the PGF to be our foundation. 

 

But this hypothetical scenario is highly unlikely, as the film has withstood scrutiny time and again and it is all but proven that the technology to make such a suit did not exist in 1967. And arguably still does not exist today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
8 hours ago, Huntster said:

So how many more encounters are there that never saw the light of day? Another 25,000? Isn't the reluctance to report also a psychological factor?

 

If one is fearful of being labeled a crackpot and therefore as somehow flawed, or "teched" by their community then it could be considered psychological. But not because there's something wrong, weak, or dysfunctional or missing in that person. No one likes ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

No, but it is on the verge of exposing yet another discipline of "science" that is failing within the realm of this phenomenon; psychology. That would be a fun discussion, too, since psychology is failing so completely in so many other ways, too.........

 

It would be a fun discussion, and that was a lot of the original intent, and NO it's not a distraction, it's a largely (and likely willfully) ignored piece of the overall subject which can be approached from more than on angle.

11 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

If Bigfoot is a real animal, which the evidence suggests, then psychology will have little to no place as a research methodology. If Bigfoot is a spectre, a figment of man's collective imagination then psychology will have a great deal of relevancy. 

 

But spectres do not leave trackways and DNA evidence. 

 

No but if the creature is never discovered it still is a valid study of what got so many to think they saw something, there's more than just folklore involved, I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

The last sentence of my above post. Trackways and DNA evidence. I think conclusively refutes the OP. 

 

The OP is predicated on an "IF", so no it doesn't. The premise, popular or not is literally that of a coin, which has two sides:

 

1) If the creature exists > tracks, DNA, etc   > eventual dead or live baseline specimen

2) If it doesn't > perfectly valid study into the psychology of what made the belief so prevalent  > psychological study of that belief.

 

Not every report is valid so there's another area of study:

 

Desire to believe?

Misidentification  based on sensory limitations of the human animal

 

etc.

 

Not looking at all the angles is an incomplete study of the phenomenon

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

I find the mechanism of a witness trying to fit the creature into something within the known natural world through some kind of mental gymnastics- and failing- far, far more interesting.

 

which is also part of greater puzzle but not the only part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...