Indian Yeti / Barmanu

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
I think the language we're up against this time is Russian.
I did a couple of years of Russian at school, 40-plus years ago now -- just scraped an O level. Found it horribly difficult, and it quickly became wearisome. An acid test of degree of interest in Almas etc. matters would be: said interest sufficient to get me to revive and improve Russian-language skills, such as they were?
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
353
Points
99
stuneville said:
It's not backwards, but despite having an infrastructure, it's still a very big, sporadically populated area - and big tracts of it are to all intents and purposes wilderness.
Agreed, but the same could be said of the Alps, Pyrenees and Carpathians. And remember that these things also manifest in densely suburban and populated areas.

And indeed, so do Yeren and Sasquatch ones (eg braiding the manes of horses.) Wouldn't surprise me if some Yowie ones do as well - worth noting though that Native American tribes often had separate names for Sasquatch-type entities that indicate an accepted difference between flesh and blood creatures (whom they regarded as another tribe in many cases) and supernatural beings.
And it is also often reported that they see these creatures as otherwordly

Which could tie in neatly with:
oldrover said:
Despite the fact that to me at least the Yowie represents convincing evidence that people will see these things whether they’re there or not, as for the Yeti and Yeren I still can’t quite let go of the idea that there may have been something behind them at one time. There’s the case of the stories from Flores of a small race of people, now with evidence to say that at least at one time there was another diminutive human species there. But then of course you get those stories from most other parts of the world as well.
..and, as with Flores, who's to say that some time in the future fossils, or other findings in Australia, Europe and North America won't turn up similar evidence for large bipedal primates? As we've already discussed, total reliance on the fossil record can be misleading - not only can some soils destroy any evidence given time, but it can only ever be representative.
I agree, it is possible that some 'primitive' Homo survived until very recently. They could account for the case of the Nittaewos in Ceylan, for example. Although it is equally plausible that they were Homo sapiens, whose memory became later distorted.
When it comes to australopithecs, for example, it is a very diferent matter. They are not recorded in fossil archives for more than one million years - although there have been controversies about the child of Taung in South Africa, and a few other remains ; but that remains speculative. So to suppose that they have survived is too much of a big jump. Which is unfortunate, from a flesh-and-blood standpoint, because only an australopithecus could account for the physical description of many almastys or BHMs all over the world - notwithstanding what some cryptozoologists say. They're simply too ape-like to be any kind of Homo, Neanderthal or erectus.
Which leads to the same point I had already risen : the great variety of descriptions of the ape-men, present in Caucasus as in any part of the world where BHMs manifest. To suppose that it is part of natural variation does not do the job. They are simply too different to be part of the same species. So we have to suppose the presence of an amazing menagerie of unidentified hominids or anthropoids in many regions of the world.


You have to take any and all evidence holistically - and sightings at least show that people are seeing (and occasionally interacting) with something - similarly what about sound recordings of howls, etc? They're not wolves, coyotes or humans (the vocal tract is too long) - and that's before we even get onto footprint evidence - granted many are fake, but what of the ones that Krantz, Meldrum and Napier regard as legit, and have said so despite the reputational risk they have run by saying so?

I don't know if BHMs are flesh and blood, ghosts of BHMs, some kind of dimensional entity, or a combination of the above and many more - what I am sure of, though, is that people are seeing something, and they're seeing them all over the world - and it's distinctly unFortean to tell them they're not, simply on the basis that they can't be.
I don't think these sentences were directed to me, as they adress some points I never made - and I made myself clear on many occasions that I didn't share them.
For my part, I don't believe anymore that the flesh-and-blood option is a possibility. I am of the opinion that they are some kind of entities, that can be material at least partially and temporarily. But they're 'real' probably only for the time of the sigthing.
As for the argument "they don't see them because it's impossible", it is the crux of the dogmatic rationalists' arguments. But it won't prevent them to appear, and let sometimes physical evidence. Claiming that so many witnesses are deluded or lying is preposterous in my opinion. We are facing a situation of the kind described by Jerome Clarke in his article on the end of litteralism. The same can be said of sightings of fairies, lake and sea serpents, UFOs, 'aliens', ABCs, etc...
Something more they have in common is their absurdity, their ostentation and elusiveness. Which to me, confirms that they are of the same 'alien' fabric.

I have not found the relevant anecdote in the book Sauvages et velus. Although it mentions other cases with what seems to be a folkloric element. In an old magazine (Science et Avenir hors-série #111, june-july 1995), I have found an article from a Professor Georges Charachidzé, who reports that the description of the female almasty, with its long breast worn above its shoulder when it walks, is the same than that of a local female demon. According to him, almasty is one local form of Al-basty, the name of the demoness. It comes from "Al", a persian and turkish name for genies, and the turkish "basty", which means "has crushed". The demoness sits on women who have just given birth to crush them. He speaks also of its habit to assail peasants who have to grab and suck its breast to free themselves.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
As for the argument "they don't see them because it's impossible", it is the crux of the dogmatic rationalists' arguments.

From a physical perspective yes, and I think however arrogant or distasteful a statement that may be unfortunately it stands. Regarding the paranormal though it isn’t the crux of or any other part of my argument, my view is that the manifestations of these creatures follow to closely other elements of human knowledge and culture to be external from it.

In On the Track of Unknown Animals he says that if the creatures speculated about don’t exist then the book is still valuable as a reference work on zoological folklore, I think that’s very true.

Firstly despite being a pretty exhaustive examination of the most significant cryptids as known in 1955, I can’t remember there being any reference to Bigfoot. That’s surprising if there is anything behind them, physical or paranormal. Yes I know tht there are a few earlier reports that can be pointed to, but they’re not homogenous and also seem to describe animals that are either more bear like or more human, like the Almasty. The standardised concept of giant ape doesn’t seem to be the front runner until the 50’s. The timing of that is significant because that’s the decade that the Yeti becomes really famous because, as has been suggested elsewhere on another thread, of the general interest about the Himalayas generated by the Everest expeditions.

In this climate René Dahinden says to a co-worker he’d love to go the Himalayas and look for the Yeti, to which the other man replies that there’s no need they’ve got the same type of thing there. Around the same time Wallace starts his hoaxing. It’s the Patterson Gimlin film though that really seals Bigfoot as America’s and therefore a large part of the rest of the world’s number one cryptid.

I don’t see there’s anything to distinguish the place that the modern man beasts hold and that held by the supernatural fairy folk of the past. By and large people have always seen themselves as unique in nature and have always had a tendency to create semi human creatures both as metaphors for nature in general, as well as something onto which they can project certain qualities which they either admire or fear, or attribute things they don’t understand to their actions. Oneness with nature, gentleness, human devouring, child stealing and mane plaiting being respective examples of each, and apply to both fairy folk and man beasts.

The only serious difference is what we tend to believe these creatures are. In a time when supernatural/spiritual explanations for life and nature prevailed these creatures were magical beings like trolls fairies and goblins. Today though we put them in what seems to us to be the more reasonable context of relict hominids or anthropoids. We then start sticking features onto them based on known physiology from other similar animals despite the fact that this is often physiologically contradictory, such as the descriptions on another thread of the tool using clothes wearing Almasty having a conical head.

Returning to the yeti and On the Track etc the early reports given there don’t match up with the current consensus of what a yeti is and does. There’s an account there of a group of them wearing lion cloths and beating drums. I think that’s another example to reinforce the point above. As is the divergence of description in the earlier Bigfoot reports, which as I said either describe something more human or more animal. Toe numbers vary, and initially there’s plenty of talk of claws and aggression but these seem to filter out over the years till we have the modern product. If these are some supernatural manifestations from elsewhere then why are they evolving exactly at the same pace and direction as our views about science and our emotional reaction to nature?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,964
Reaction score
5,232
Points
284
Analis said:
..worth noting though that Native American tribes often had separate names for Sasquatch-type entities that indicate an accepted difference between flesh and blood creatures (whom they regarded as another tribe in many cases) and supernatural beings.
And it is also often reported that they see these creatures as otherwordly
Which is my point - they take pains to give those they regard as supernatural and those they regard as part of the local fauna different names. What they, and other aboriginal races didn't, and continue not to do is regard them as "weird". That's a very Western attitude, borne of relatively homogenised education and communicative practices in the first world - not saying it's outright wrong, per se, but most indigenous peoples in less urbanised environments (yes, including Caucasus and North Western USA/ Canada here) are more in touch with the world immediately about them than most of us posting on here, for a start. We know what the Beckham's latest sprog is called, but how many of us know how early certain fruits have ripened just down the road?

Analis said:
I said:
..and, as with Flores, who's to say that some time in the future fossils, or other findings in Australia, Europe and North America won't turn up similar evidence for large bipedal primates? As we've already discussed, total reliance on the fossil record can be misleading - not only can some soils destroy any evidence given time, but it can only ever be representative.
I agree, it is possible that some 'primitive' Homo survived until very recently. They could account for the case of the Nittaewos in Ceylan, for example. Although it is equally plausible that they were Homo sapiens, whose memory became later distorted.
When it comes to australopithecs, for example, it is a very diferent matter. They are not recorded in fossil archives for more than one million years..
Again, based on the pre-supposition that the fossil record is gospel. Agreed it's hard evidence, but can only ever be indicative, and a lot of theoretics have been based on it, often pushing Occam to the limit. Hell, we haven't even found our own complete ancestry yet, but we know we exist.

Analis said:
Which leads to the same point I had already risen : the great variety of descriptions of the ape-men, present in Caucasus as in any part of the world where BHMs manifest. To suppose that it is part of natural variation does not do the job. They are simply too different to be part of the same species. So we have to suppose the presence of an amazing menagerie of unidentified hominids or anthropoids in many regions of the world.
Playing Devil's Advocate - why not? There's thousands of species variants around the world.

Yeah, I know that's not a killer argument by the way :D.


Analis said:
I said:
You have to take any and all evidence holistically - and sightings at least show that people are seeing (and occasionally interacting) with something - similarly what about sound recordings of howls, etc? They're not wolves, coyotes or humans (the vocal tract is too long) - and that's before we even get onto footprint evidence - granted many are fake, but what of the ones that Krantz, Meldrum and Napier regard as legit, and have said so despite the reputational risk they have run by saying so?

I don't know if BHMs are flesh and blood, ghosts of BHMs, some kind of dimensional entity, or a combination of the above and many more - what I am sure of, though, is that people are seeing something, and they're seeing them all over the world - and it's distinctly unFortean to tell them they're not, simply on the basis that they can't be.
I don't think these sentences were directed to me..
No, they weren't. It was me putting forward a general point which seems generally accepted - at least we're all agreed that people aren't all deluded or purposely mendacious. Whatever the true nature, people are objectively seeing something.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
By the way guys, the latest on the Flores hominis is that they might not be Homo at all. Belive it or not, its looking like thay are closer to australopithecines the last of whome supposedly died out about 2.5 million years ago!!!!!
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Right that is interesting. Any particular links for this, or is it still in the specialist realm only?
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
The only serious difference is what we tend to believe these creatures are. In a time when supernatural/spiritual explanations for life and nature prevailed these creatures were magical beings like trolls fairies and goblins. Today though we put them in what seems to us to be the more reasonable context of relict hominids or anthropoids. We then start sticking features onto them based on known physiology from other similar animals despite the fact that this is often physiologically contradictory, such as the descriptions on another thread of the tool using clothes wearing Almasty having a conical head.

Returning to the yeti and On the Track etc the early reports given there don’t match up with the current consensus of what a yeti is and does. There’s an account there of a group of them wearing lion cloths and beating drums. I think that’s another example to reinforce the point above. As is the divergence of description in the earlier Bigfoot reports, which as I said either describe something more human or more animal. Toe numbers vary, and initially there’s plenty of talk of claws and aggression but these seem to filter out over the years till we have the modern product. If these are some supernatural manifestations from elsewhere then why are they evolving exactly at the same pace and direction as our views about science and our emotional reaction to nature?
These are points to consider. Being a little flippant: one could go yet further down what some regard as the “cop-out” road of ascribing “BHM / MHB” events, to the paranormal; and conclude that the supernatural manifestations from elsewhere are evolving closely parallel to mankind’s overall views / reactions -- because that is what they (or whoever / whatever controls them) choose to do, for their own inscrutable reasons...

This conforming to the human-culture component does go on, I agree; and promotes puzzlement. Though stuneville writes of “a general point which seems generally accepted – at least we’re all agreed that people aren’t all deluded or purposely mendacious. Whatever the true nature, people are objectively seeing SOMETHING.” – I have occasional bouts of wondering whether the hard-line rationalist sceptics might just be right: that the whole phenomenon actually IS a matter of lies / hoaxes / wishful thinking / erroneous beliefs / passing on folklore / hallucination / optical illusions / misidentification of mundane “creatures or features”.

What I see as an astute observation by the sceptical brigade: concerns the explosion of interest in cryptozoological matters, which has taken place in recent years, in parallel with the flowering of the Internet. Never before has so much information / misinformation been so very readily accessible to huge numbers of the world’s population; including there never having been before, so much ready raw material for liars and fakers to use, and such opportunities for liars and fakers to practice their deceptions. It has become extremely easy – most especially in respect of North America and Bigfoot – for aspiring deceivers to find on the Net, accounts of MHB encounters, and confect therefrom, their own fictitious encounters and publish them as though true, on Net sites dealing in the subject. Tendency for the MHB physical descriptions in such accounts, to be pretty homogeneous – many liars copying from a not-enormous amount of original material...

Find self wondering at times, whether virtually the whole MHB thing as it flourishes today, is in fact a result of the rise of the Internet, with very large numbers of hoaxers / pranksters / liars having a ball on this general scene. The cliché about, “on the Internet, anyone could be pretending to be anyone, and more often than not, they are...” I have no doubt that at least a fair number of posters on “crypto” boards are, in fact, lying like Ananias (no aspersions meant, about anyone on this FT message board – the board’s general stance and outlook, are such that behaviour of that kind, would not flourish here); but the sheer number of clearly level-headed and normal people who post on such boards, and who are convinced that they have experienced MHB encounters, is just too great for it to be credible to me, that they’re ALL deluded or purposely mendacious. If nothing else: there are just not that many clever, convincing and effective liars around – even from a pool of billions of people.

Back thus to the premise that some people, anyway, are seeing something, which is apparently not accounted for in the body of human knowledge at this present time; overall data to best of my perception, suggesting to me, “something paranormal somehow”, likelier than “highly elusive purely-flesh-and-blood beings”. As ever, YMMV.
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
353
Points
99
oldrover said:
Firstly despite being a pretty exhaustive examination of the most significant cryptids as known in 1955, I can’t remember there being any reference to Bigfoot. That’s surprising if there is anything behind them, physical or paranormal. Yes I know tht there are a few earlier reports that can be pointed to, but they’re not homogenous and also seem to describe animals that are either more bear like or more human, like the Almasty. The standardised concept of giant ape doesn’t seem to be the front runner until the 50’s. The timing of that is significant because that’s the decade that the Yeti becomes really famous because, as has been suggested elsewhere on another thread, of the general interest about the Himalayas generated by the Everest expeditions.
It is true that a standardized portrayal of Bigfoot has become popular, very bulky and to some extant more ape-like. But I would not define it as really yeti-like, and then a copy of the yeti. In the 50s, the yeti was often pictured as a true, huge ape. And sometimes still is, as on this beautiful cover : http://www.amazon.com/Yetis-Sasquatch-G ... pd_sim_b_6

The 'standard' bigfoot looks like a true hominid, its closer fossil counterpart being the Paranthropus (robust australopithecine). And this standard suffers from the same flaws I mentionned : it doesn't take into account that much variation is present. This remains true after 1958. We have a wide range of descriptions, from Neanderthal-like to apish giants. It was also the case prior to 1958. Some testimonies already described the creature as a kind of ape-man. If you take for example William Roe's sighting from 1955 in British Columbia (he issued an affidavit on 26 August 1957), he mentioned a half-human half-animal face, and long arms. The same can be said for the yowie.

oldrover said:
I don’t see there’s anything to distinguish the place that the modern man beasts hold and that held by the supernatural fairy folk of the past
What is irritating is that fairies were seen, despite their impossibility. Something they have in common with man-beasts. It also applies to 'aliens' and 'alien abductions'.

oldrover said:
Toe numbers vary, and initially there’s plenty of talk of claws and aggression but these seem to filter out over the years till we have the modern product.
I'm coming back to what I said. Such features are still reported. They may be censored by bigfootologists, or sometimes by the public itself. And I'm not mentionning the blurred distinction with other shapes of man-beasts, werewolf-like, whose reports seem to increase.

oldrover said:
If these are some supernatural manifestations from elsewhere then why are they evolving exactly at the same pace and direction as our views about science and our emotional reaction to nature?
I don't like the word supernatural. But these manifestations do seem to follow our cultural trends, to some extant. They are not a perfect match, more like a caricature. And they are selective and arbitrary, as they select only a limited number of themes.

stuneville said:
Analis said:
And it is also often reported that they see these creatures as otherwordly
Which is my point - they take pains to give those they regard as supernatural and those they regard as part of the local fauna different names.
In fact, by creatures, I meant the Sasquatch.


stuneville said:
No, they weren't. It was me putting forward a general point which seems generally accepted - at least we're all agreed that people aren't all deluded or purposely mendacious. Whatever the true nature, people are objectively seeing something.
With which I agree completely.

lordmongrove said:
By the way guys, the latest on the Flores hominis is that they might not be Homo at all. Belive it or not, its looking like thay are closer to australopithecines the last of whome supposedly died out about 2.5 million years ago!!!!!
I have read a number of mentions of the presence of un-homo features in the Flores hominid, but until now detailed studies seem to remain mainly into the specialist realm. It seems that the limbs and shoulders display some adaptations to tree-dwelling. Which suggests that they are australopithecines. But it is possible too that they were Homo who secondarily became re-adaptated to a more arboreal niche. In two million years and on a large planet, many adaptations and divergences could happen that we don't know of.

By the way, not all paleontologists agree on the extinction of the australopithecines, but 2.5 million years is too old Some are of the opinion that they became extinct around 1.8 millions years ago, or even 1.5 million years for Paranthropus. But datations have been put into question on more than one occasion. The controversial datation for the Taung Child gave it at 900 000 years, as opposed to the usually accepted 2.5 million years.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
but the sheer number of clearly level-headed and normal people who post on such boards, and who are convinced that they have experienced MHB encounters, is just too great for it to be credible to me, that they’re ALL deluded or purposely mendacious. If nothing else: there are just not that many clever, convincing and effective liars around – even from a pool of billions of people.
Fair, but it is a strong archetype and it always has been. Secondly if you can’t credit there being that many clever convincing people, what other group are the many level headed and convincing witnesses made up from?

I take it that as far as the three of us are concerned the flesh and blood explanation is off the table. So it’s only the psychosocial/cultural and the paranormal. Personally I’m a lot more comfortable with these two because even though I’m convinced by one the other doesn’t have the mortal weaknesses that the flesh and blood camp has to deal with. Dismissing the reports without considering the paranormal I think is too reductive and as someone said un-Fortean. If people say they’re seeing something then I think we’d all agree that it deserves serious consideration, even though we might draw very different conclusions.

Though stuneville writes of “a general point which seems generally accepted – at least we’re all agreed that people aren’t all deluded or purposely mendacious. Whatever the true nature, people are objectively seeing SOMETHING.”
I’m not in agreement I’m afraid, to my satisfaction that hasn’t been proved. I’m not trying to be as arrogant as that sounds but for me the evidence so far is pointing to a cultural phenomena. Very like Analis’ point about aliens. To use the Arnold case as an analogy; I’ve got no doubt that aliens exist, and it’s possible that they may indeed visit us, but, if someone is misquoted in the press as seeing ‘saucers’ when they actually described seeing something else, then for the next few decades thousands of other people report seeing saucers too, and saucers become the absolute front runner for the shape of anything strange in the sky then I’m worried. I think it says more about our absorption of the media and cultural trends rather than anything that may or may not have been in the skies of 1947. Or it’s one hell of a coincidence, the sort we have to ignore again in the case of the Bigfoot.

It’s implausible coincidence which is the basis of my argument. Yes there are good reports but their context is weak. The problem starts with the fact that Bigfoot as a distinct modern phenomenon begins in the 1950’s*, and there’s a demonstrable link between it’s beginning and both a known hoax in the shape of Ray Wallace, and the interest in the yeti generated in the press at the time. To support the latter we have key Bigfoot researcher René Dahinden’s conversation recalled at interview, as well as Peter Byrne’s being brought over from India by Tom Slick in 1960 to lead his expedition. (I’m not suggesting either ever did anything underhand) These are two of the main original researchers in the modern sense. Also there’s evidence that strongly suggests that Bigfoot was originally marketed as an American version of the Yeti, see Roger Patterson's ‘Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?’ 1966 ( a year before he took the film by the way)

All of this is fine and suggests nothing in particular other than early Bigfoot research was influenced by the then far more widely known and popular yeti, a situation which persisted at least in part until at least 1975 when ‘Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman’ was published. But, and here we have the coincidence again a situation from the Himalayas stimulates similar interest thousands of miles away and shortly afterward sightings in the second location start to increase dramatically. I can’t find exact figures but I don’t think that’s disputable. Of course it’s likely that more publicity would bring about more reports being filed but from negligible to thousands country wide is not accountable for by this explanation.

If this was caused by anything paranormal why would it chose to manifest itself to coincide with such traceable human activity, and interest. Unless such paranormal forces are influenced by or react to human trends, which I find as unlikely as the flesh and blood argument, to me it seems far more likely that this is an example of a nothing other than an unconsciously or otherwise man made sensation.

There are plenty of precedents for such things as well as the obvious examples relating to religious visions, fairies trolls and the like, there are in fact plenty of other examples of this type of mass reporting and belief in far more serious and harmful things that have been shown to be false, like Christians conspiracies, papist plots, outbreaks of witch craft and reds under the bed. We found plenty of examples of each when they weren’t there; we’re just a very fallible and easily influenced species.

Also there’s no point in denying that there’s a lot of motivation to promote Bigfoot as it is a sizeable commercial venture, just take a look at this non exhaustive list of books on the subject;
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/review ... terial.htm

Essentially what I believe is that while there’s no way to show that something paranormal isn’t happening and that it would be wrong and closed minded not to consider it genuinely, there are more likely and well attested to human mechanisms that are also valid explanations, so on balance I chose to go with them.

* I know this is debateable from several angles, but in this context I mean it to refer only to the increase in the number of sightings.

As for h. floresiensis interesting article here;

http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/argue%20hobbit.pdf
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
I have to say that i think the 'all in the mind' or 'imagination' explanation is by far the most feeble. It explanes absolutly nothing. Ti me it smacks or 'this is all too weird / inconvinietnt, lets just say its all made up'. Imaginatuon didn't make the huge, human-like track i saw in India that sank 2 inches deep into the earth were as my own 18 stone san less than an inch.

By the way the stories of yeti with loin cloths and bows and arrows allmost certainly refer to hill tribes. A close examination of the descriptipn speaks of relativly hairless bodies with yellowish skin if memory serves. The story about a group of them banging drums just sounds like rubbish
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
PS the creature on the David Hatcher-Childress book looks like a modern interpretation of the yeti by someone who knows nothing about it. There have, to my knolage never been any sightings of a yeti with white fur. Black, brown, reddish, grey but not white.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,964
Reaction score
5,232
Points
284
oldrover said:
..I take it that as far as the three of us are concerned the flesh and blood explanation is off the table...
If you're including me in that, then no, not at all - I still believe that a flesh and blood explanation in some cases is entirely feasible, just not in all cases. Broad-brush, one-stop explanations for any complex, long-established and frequently cited phenomenon rarely satisfy.

Just to reiterate my position - I believe that individual sightings and evidence should be evaluated on their own merit. And in some cases delusion is entirely possible, in others a paranormal explanation seems favourite - but in others still, detailed sightings by very solid, knowledgeable witnesses coupled with evidence gathered point to a physical presence. And I'm afraid all the emphasis on the fossil record as a strong case for the prosecution doesn't sway me much at all, for reasons I gave previously: cf the following by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson, from here:
..many environments can never yield fossils. Die on top of a mountain, for example, and your fossil hopes are slim. The reason is that mountains don’t bury, they erode. .. Likewise, if soil is too acidic, bones dissolve. That’s why forest animals leave few fossils: forest soil tends to be acidic...

..All this means that the fossil record of the Earth is inherently skewed. For instance, river deltas are great places to get buried and preserved. So animals that lived in or near them are much more likely to make it into the fossil record than most other creatures; as a result, we have river-delta fossils in much greater numbers than most other types. But during life, those animals were by no means the most numerous. As one friend put it, it’s like making an inventory of current North American wildlife based on what you find at the mouth of the Mississippi.

In light of this, the fossil record we do have becomes the more amazing. Yes, it has limitations. Yes, there are many organisms that we can never know about, for we will never know they existed. They breathed, and changed the atmosphere; they preyed on other beings; their carcasses became food, and altered the composition of the soil; but they left no physical trace, no clues to what they looked like, to the lives they led, the mates they seduced, the songs they sang.
(my italics)

I'll say it once more - people who often as not know what they're looking at are seeing something - and none of us know what it is (if we did it wouldn't be a Fortean subject!) - and I just can't buy one single explanation for every incident. But at the heart of that, I believe in the objective, physical existence of man-beasts, in various remote and secluded locations around the world. I don't think every sighting is of one of them, but I think some sightings are, and on that basis alone I believe any physical expedition to try and garner more solid evidence is justified.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
I have to say that i think the 'all in the mind' or 'imagination' explanation is by far the most feeble. It explanes absolutly nothing…
I can understand your exasperation with that attitude but I can’t see how it applies to me. Of course I’m not a zoologist and have never been on expedition, but I have followed this since the 1970’s, I’ve considered the evidence for decades and the conclusion I’ve come to, which hasn’t pleased me at all, is that bluntly it’s not ‘too weird / inconvenient’ at all, but sadly something far more mundane.

By the way the stories of yeti with loin cloths and bows and arrows allmost certainly refer to hill tribes. A close examination of the descriptipn speaks of relativly hairless bodies with yellowish skin if memory serves.
You’re forgetting the giant size. Also what are we saying here, that on that day the witness failed to recognise his fellow human beings? I’m reluctantly critical about eye witness accuracy but I wouldn’t go that far.

As for the footprint I’m sure it wasn’t imagination but having ruled that out it doesn’t equal a yeti.

If you're including me in that, then no, not at all - I still believe that a flesh and blood explanation in some cases is entirely feasible, just not in all cases. Broad-brush, one-stop explanations for any complex, long-established and frequently cited phenomenon rarely satisfy.
No I only meant Analis, Amyasleigh and myself. I accept what you say about broad brushes, but as I’ve said I can’t accept the modern man beast phenomena as a long standing, or as being built on anything solid. I see, and this relates again to Lordmongrove’s point as well, the here are people saying they’ve seen something; therefore there must be something objective there argument as the oversimplification. I also agree that each eye witness should be examined individually but can’t ignore the negative evidence, not least of which concerns the context these sightings are made.

As for the fossil record I don’t know any member of the prosecution here anyway that’s ever tried to use it.

I'll say it once more - people who often as not know what they're looking at are seeing something - and none of us know what it is (if we did it wouldn't be a Fortean subject!)
It can still be a Fortean subject just not as straightforward or with such a favourable outcome that most of us would like. As for the competent witnesses of course I take that seriously but it's still asking too much to take them on face value because of the context, which seriously weakens their plausibility.

The way I see it is this; I think the negative evidence against a physical animal is conclusive, not just that it can’t be seriously applied in certain areas. The paranormal doesn’t convince me either because as I said you have to ignore among other things the coincidence of the timing. So a mix of the two is out. I’m left with psychosocial, and honestly if I give this subject the respect it deserves I’ve got to apply the same critical skills I’d be expected to apply elsewhere, which includes checking for precedents for my argument, of which I find many. Also, and I want to stress here that I’m not trying to be rude, I can’t help feeling that there’s little attempt to address the serious questions that hang over this subject from the flesh and blood camp.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
lordmongrove said:
I have to say that i think the 'all in the mind' or 'imagination' explanation is by far the most feeble. It explanes absolutly nothing. Ti me it smacks or 'this is all too weird / inconvinietnt, lets just say its all made up'. Imaginatuon didn't make the huge, human-like track i saw in India that sank 2 inches deep into the earth were as my own 18 stone san less than an inch.
I’d think that the hard-line sceptics would attribute that track, to the work of a local hoaxer. I'd fully agree that such folk are thus engaging in elaborate mental gymnastics in support of the scenario which they’re wedded to / invested in – explaining-away rather than explaining.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,964
Reaction score
5,232
Points
284
If only every thread on this board cold be conducted with this level of civility, I could retire :).

Anyway:

oldrover said:
As for the fossil record I don’t know any member of the prosecution here anyway that’s ever tried to use it.
Sorry, I should have been more specific - I didn't necessarily mean anyone contributing on here. I should have said the lack of fossil precedence has for a long while been used by some sceptics as a discussion killer (no fossils=never existed in first place=can't possibly exist now=case closed, now go away), which is why I've taken care to counter in case it was raised and became a canard that derailed the thread.

oldrover said:
I said:
I'll say it once more - people who often as not know what they're looking at are seeing something - and none of us know what it is (if we did it wouldn't be a Fortean subject!)
It can still be a Fortean subject just not as straightforward or with such a favourable outcome that most of us would like.
Agreed - I was just observing that if it were cut and dried, conclusive evidence one way or t'other it probably wouldn't exercise us nearly so much. And I doubt there would be funded expeditions investigating it - which is in itself a devil's advocate point. Somebody with cash must think it worth the investment.

oldrover said:
The way I see it is this; I think the negative evidence against a physical animal is conclusive, not just that it can’t be seriously applied in certain areas.
And again, I respectfully disagree. The negative evidence is IMHO easily countered by the positive evidence (credible anecdotal, indigenous tradition, anomalous physical.) It's entirely analagous with the ABC thing in Britain. The Min of Ag and Fish (or whatever they're called this week) say they don't exist either. Well, I've personally spoken to four people who have seen one, of whom two were farmers and one a naturalist: the farmers had both lost livestock in a manner not consistent with dogs or foxes, all were used to seeing animals at a distance, all had a reference point against which to judge size, and all had nothing to gain by making it up. The naturalist said, and I quote, "It wasn't a fucking domestic cat." In many rural areas of (certainly) Western England the existence of big black cats isn't even up for question. The only time it gets publicity though is in the silly season. And further, I could site the wild boar in the Forest of Dean, referred to elsewhere on this forum. The Forestry Commission outright denied them for decades, despite all the local anecdotal evidence. It wasn't until a chap from the Ministry saw one that their very existence became accepted.

And in comparison to the American NW, the Caucasus, Himalayas, Blue Mountains.. the Forest of Dean's the size of someone's conservatory.

oldrover said:
The paranormal doesn’t convince me either because as I said you have to ignore among other things the coincidence of the timing. So a mix of the two is out. I’m left with psychosocial, and honestly if I give this subject the respect it deserves I’ve got to apply the same critical skills I’d be expected to apply elsewhere, which includes checking for precedents for my argument, of which I find many. Also, and I want to stress here that I’m not trying to be rude, I can’t help feeling that there’s little attempt to address the serious questions that hang over this subject from the flesh and blood camp.
As stated earlier, the lack of rudeness on this thread as a whole is utterly commendable :).

As for the flesh and blood questions, I think I have addressed a number of them, in detail - if you could summarise the real sticking points, perhaps I can summarise the counterpoints?

Summaries probably better given our respective..erm.. propensities toward detailed answers :D?
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
Fair, but it is a strong archetype and it always has been. Secondly if you can’t credit there being that many clever convincing people, what other group are the many level headed and convincing witnesses made up from?
There are plenty of people who are intelligent and sensible, but just not cut out for the liar / deceiver role, even if they might wish to perform in said role. A lot of my thoughts-expressed, are derived from the fair bit of time which I spend on the site BigfootForums -- IMO the most balanced, and high-traffic, site about the North American side of the phenomenon. It strikes me -- just so many folk (numbering in the dozens) posting there, who appear "grounded" and credible, and who at least claim first-hand MHB-encounter experience in North America. Some, I have no doubt, are lying; some honestly mistaken; but it overstrains my belief-apparatus, that one or other of the aforesaid, could apply to all of them.
oldrover said:
If this was caused by anything paranormal why would it chose to manifest itself to coincide with such traceable human activity, and interest. Unless such paranormal forces are influenced by or react to human trends, which I find as unlikely as the flesh and blood argument, to me it seems far more likely that this is an example of a nothing other than an unconsciously or otherwise man made sensation.
Suggestion in my recent post, that "whoever / whatever it is", is choosing for whatever reason, to chime in with human trends, was largely meant in a humorous way. Not entirely so: this whole business seems so extremely strange, that there's little that I hear suggested about it, that I totally reject out of hand -- even notions which many would dismiss as completely crazy. You postulate earlier, that for you and me and Analis, "the flesh and blood explanation is off the table". In a context of PURELY flesh and blood, I concur there. However, I can "buy" the possibility that these things might be here as flesh-and-blood entities some of the time, but not all (dimension-hopping? in partnership with spacefaring aliens? who knows?)

I'm a computer-idiot -- am sure that a reasonably intelligent Almas or Bigfoot could cope better than I do -- fail to "get" how to, in one post of mine, computorially quote multiple other posts / posters.

oldrover writes, in his latest post as of now: "I think the negative evidence against a physical animal is conclusive, not just that it can't be seriously applied in certain areas. The paranormal doesn't convince me either because as I said you have to ignore among other things the coincidence of the timing. So a mix of the two is out. I'm left with psychosocial..."

I'd respectfully ask, re the just-above -- why is "the coincidence of the timing" a necessarily deal-breaking problem? This whole business is so extremely odd -- to the point that IMO very little would seem too odd to consider...

stuneville writes: "all the emphasis on the fossil record as a strong case for the prosecution doesn't sway me much at all [cites Olivia Judson -- summarising-to-the-extreme, fossilisation is very hit-or-miss]."

I don't quarrel with the above. Sorry for so much emphasis on my part, on North America's Bigfoot (the MHB on which I focus most); but, my great problem with this one as purely-flesh-and-blood, is: so many centuries of human occupation of North America, including five centuries featuring the white man with his sophisticated weaponry -- humans are fierce and cruel and courageous and greatly inclined to "kill anything that moves" if they possibly can. All North America's large mammals have been, in recent centuries, discovered and scientifically classified, including the killing of numerous specimens -- with the sole exception of Bigfoot. The "purely-flesh-and-blood -- but very rare / very reclusive / very intelligent / very wary" scenario, does not cut it for me. In the main, feel the same way about most reputed MHBs in most other locations on the globe: the world nowadays is just too heavily populated and too much explored and travelled, for realistic chances of large unknown mammalian species, to remain. stuneville postulates "remote and secluded locations" -- my "take" (can't scientifically and statistically back up -- would be ready, and happy, to be convincingly refuted) is that remote-and-secluded enough for the desired conditions, has very nearly vanished from planet Earth.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
stuneville said:
If only every thread on this board cold be conducted with this level of civility, I could retire :).
stu -- may it continue -- hope I'm maintaining the civilty-pitch. A logistical thing -- the quoted post of yours happened to "hit", while I was composing my recent one, which got posted shortly after yours. I wasn't ignoring this of yours -- just, unaware of it.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,245
Reaction score
9,083
Points
284
amyasleigh said:
I'm a computer-idiot -- am sure that a reasonably intelligent Almas or Bigfoot could cope better than I do -- fail to "get" how to, in one post of mine, computorially quote multiple other posts / posters.
Most Browsers have multiple Tabs available. You can compose your reply in one, while having another copy of the relevent thread open in another, from which you can copy and paste at leisure.

(I often have the FTMB Search function open in a separate Tab, which is frequently very handy.)
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,964
Reaction score
5,232
Points
284
amyasleigh said:
stu -- may it continue -- hope I'm maintaining the civilty-pitch.
You certainly are- as I said, all on this thread are without reproach :).
amyasleigh said:
A logistical thing -- the quoted post of yours happened to "hit", while I was composing my recent one, which got posted shortly after yours. I wasn't ignoring this of yours -- just, unaware of it.
No problem - and yes, it's a problem with this kind of discussion that tend to provoke lengthy and considered responses.

Ryn's solution above is one I myself use regularly, especially with fast moving intelligent threads. Just keep checking new posts in another tab or window.

And yes, tags are sods sometimes. As is you've indicated clearly who said what and when, so no problem. Any big probs with the tags, let me know.
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
353
Points
99
oldrover said:
Very like Analis’ point about aliens. To use the Arnold case as an analogy; I’ve got no doubt that aliens exist, and it’s possible that they may indeed visit us, but, if someone is misquoted in the press as seeing ‘saucers’ when they actually described seeing something else, then for the next few decades thousands of other people report seeing saucers too, and saucers become the absolute front runner for the shape of anything strange in the sky then I’m worried. I think it says more about our absorption of the media and cultural trends rather than anything that may or may not have been in the skies of 1947. Or it’s one hell of a coincidence, the sort we have to ignore again in the case of the Bigfoot.

It’s implausible coincidence which is the basis of my argument. Yes there are good reports but their context is weak. The problem starts with the fact that Bigfoot as a distinct modern phenomenon begins in the 1950’s*, and there’s a demonstrable link between it’s beginning and both a known hoax in the shape of Ray Wallace, and the interest in the yeti generated in the press at the time. To support the latter we have key Bigfoot researcher René Dahinden’s conversation recalled at interview, as well as Peter Byrne’s being brought over from India by Tom Slick in 1960 to lead his expedition. (I’m not suggesting either ever did anything underhand) These are two of the main original researchers in the modern sense. Also there’s evidence that strongly suggests that Bigfoot was originally marketed as an American version of the Yeti, see Roger Patterson's ‘Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?’ 1966 ( a year before he took the film by the way)
[......]

* I know this is debateable from several angles, but in this context I mean it to refer only to the increase in the number of sightings.
Yes, the comparison is speaking, but not as you suppose.
In fact, Arnold described the objects he had seen as partially discoid, with only one exception. But that's not really important. Nor that sightings of discoid, elliptical or spheroid objects had not begun with him. The witnesses who reported their sightings in 1947 did not believe that they were seeing round objects, or believed they remember to have seen them, just because they had heard of a press release. The words "mass hysteria" have often been put forward, but mass hysteria has never made anyone "see" something. And the use of this name is here incorrect, but replacing it with "mass contagion" or "mass delusion" etc... changes nothing to this conclusion. You're comparing belief in Bigfoot and flying saucers with mass reporting and belief. But this phenomenon is well studied and its effects are known. We can observe that with various calls to witnesses on TV, or the kind of scares you mention, red under the bed scares, but also skinhead scares, terrorist scares, the 1938 Orson Welles scare etc... They have produced nothing of the sort. Despite that they were much more pregnant than the impact of a lousy press release, there is simply no comparison between them.
Similarly, Ray Wallace's hoxes were a minor cultural event. Did they call a mediatic frenzy ? Yes, but quite limited. I don't believe that people believed they saw man-beasts because they had heard of Wallace's scams.

And if there was really a spate of sightings, it could be interpretated in another way. That the new media exposition had led many witnesses to come forward. I personnally believe that there was probably an increase in sightings during the 60s, but it is impossible to prove. What is certain is that in his 1957 affidavit, William Roe wrote that he had heard stories of the Sasquatch, a hairy giant, but that he hadn't believed them until his sighting.

I would advise as a testimony of how reports of Bigfoot were perceived in 1969 John Keel's Strange creatures from time and space. He mentions a number of pre-1958 accounts, often too sketchy. But they already included the same characteristics that have become associated with the Sasquatch, gorilla-like, tremendous strenght, smell of carrion...


oldrover said:
If this was caused by anything paranormal why would it chose to manifest itself to coincide with such traceable human activity, and interest. Unless such paranormal forces are influenced by or react to human trends, which I find as unlikely as the flesh and blood argument, to me it seems far more likely that this is an example of a nothing other than an unconsciously or otherwise man made sensation.
This is one of the important debates of the paranormal. Jacques Vallée and others have suggested that there was like an interactive system (a 'control system'), that not only espoused human beliefs, but also shaped them.

oldrover said:
Also there’s no point in denying that there’s a lot of motivation to promote Bigfoot as it is a sizeable commercial venture, just take a look at this non exhaustive list of books on the subject;
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/review ... terial.htm
Yes, but as with many books on the paranormal, notably UFOs, how many are really making a fortune out of them ? Bigfootology is mainly a hobby.

@ stuneville : I agree with much you say, but relating to the flesh-and-blood theory, I stand to my stance. I don't believe in ABCs as true animals, either, except for occasional fugitives. Sometimes, exotic animals flee, but they are quickly spotted, caught (like a kangaroo last year in the region of Calais), or found dead (I remember that another kangaroo had been killed by a car in the same region late 2005 or early 2006).
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
If i recall correctly the 'yeti' in the loin cloth with a bow and arrow was no larger than a human being, which i think is exactly what it was.

As for the foot print. It looked very natural and was found beside a stream in a remote part of the Garo Hills. You could see other, less clear tracks were the thing had walked and stepped across the stream. It seemed to be turning over rock in search of freshwater crabs. It sunk into the dirt for two inches so it was very heavy. The dirt had many small stones in it. I think a hoaxer would have cholse a less remote spot and made more trakes. Besides we didn't give the local people anything for talking to us.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Speaking of threads moving on since the last time you logged on…

If only every thread on this board cold be conducted with this level of civility, I could retire
Thank you. I’ve always found Cryptozoology to be a polite forum. I think a lot of it may be down to the fact that’s that this is essentially the same discussion that’s a group of us have been arguing across multiple threads for nearly two years now, and as it’s got many different facets to it so we find ourselves agreeing with each other at least some of the time.

Also I think it’s between people whose primary interest is Cryptozoology so everyone has a sympathetic view of the subject, and again to echo the last post even those who find themselves forced into disbelieving would be glad to be proved wrong.

And again, I respectfully disagree. The negative evidence is IMHO easily countered by the positive evidence (credible anecdotal, indigenous tradition, anomalous physical.) It's entirely analagous with the ABC thing in Britain
Physical evidence first then, I can’t think of any examples that I can say are persuasive and never did. If there is anything particularly good I’d be glad to hear about it. Indigenous tradition is an interesting question, and honestly I think it’s one that can be used by either side as persuasive proof. It’s just so ambiguous, when one culture interprets another despite the fundamental similarities a lot of context may be lost. I think fairly good examples of this, for my argument, can be seen on the Nandi bear thread, but of course you can counter with equally valid examples, like the native stories about the mountain gorilla. I genuinely detest undermining eye witnesses but, as I say in this case I think it has to be considered.

As for ABC’s they’re there, we know this we’ve captured them we’ve even (and this too remote a chance to draw any conclusions from) found remains. Admittedly though we’ve never photographed one. As an aside I know two witnesses one saw a sickly Puma in his back garden, the other was an ex girlfriend who saw a black leopard on the Beacons, and even though she admitted seeing it totally refused to accept it was real.

Summaries probably better given our respective..erm.. propensities toward detailed answers ?
Yes, I’m starting to realise that this thread isn’t the home of the one liner. So in summary here are brief references to some of my main objections;


Problems with the animal itself;

*The reports are global indicating a hugely dispersed species
(Something that surprises me though is that Virunga population model for mountain gorillas isn’t cited in support of their existence, the actual numbers needed, if you try to extrapolate from the gorilla which I think is fair, are shockingly low for a sustainable population estimated as being viable for apr 400 years)
*No body despite huge economic incentives to produce one, we’ve managed to exploit every other species except this one which would be the worlds most widely distributed large mammal ever.
*It’s remarkably adaptable as it’s reported in every type of habitat and climate, so the main problem in that case is why aren’t there more of them.
*Reported in areas it couldn’t have physically reached
*Differences in reports i.e. Almasty to Sasquatch, indicating as Analis says a menagerie of undiscovered bipeds.
*Physiological features which seem strange.

General problems

*Timing for Sasquatch looks suspicious
*Evidence of sharp practice
*Continuity between mythology and modern reports
*Danger of westernising indigenous tradition to fit modern tastes
*Repeated Precedents for this level of misidentification, in the modern sense particularly interesting if not conclusive example here;
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fb ... alien.html

Amyasleigh and Analis I’ll come back to you both your posts as of course there's been a lot of posting today, one thing out of order though;

If i recall correctly the 'yeti' in the loin cloth with a bow and arrow was no larger than a human being, which i think is exactly what it was.
I don’t think so, does anyone have a copy handy?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,964
Reaction score
5,232
Points
284
oldrover said:
I said:
If only every thread on this board cold be conducted with this level of civility, I could retire
Thank you. I’ve always found Cryptozoology to be a polite forum.
Oh, that you'd seen it a few years ago...
oldrover said:
..As for ABC’s they’re there, we know this we’ve captured them..
Bloody hell, have we? As in, actually caught, or am I being too literal? Spoors. pics, sightings I knew about, and I have to say never doubted they were really out there..

That said, playing Devil's Advocate again, if in a relatively small, exposed area like SW England big cats can roam officially unrecognised, how does that bode for far vaster, forested areas elsewhere?

On which I'll have to temporarily leave the discussion in terms of regular consistency - was going to be going away this weekend, but instead will be largely absent from tomorrow. As a result for the next week or so I will check in and give comprehensive answers as and when I can - trying to post with a smart phone is difficult at the best of times :) - so please don't regard relative quietness on my part as ignorance.

Keep it going - I will catch up and I will return!
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
If i recall correctly the 'yeti' in the loin cloth with a bow and arrow was no larger than a human being, which i think is exactly what it was.
I don’t think so, does anyone have a copy handy?
I think the following, quoted from Heuvelmans's "On The Track Of...", is the passage concerned. Recounted in 1921 by one William Knight, who told of its happening near Gangtok in Sikkim; from the context, about 1903 or '04.

"I stopped to breathe my horse...I heard a slight sound, and looking round, I saw some 15 or 20 paces away, a figure which I now suppose must have been one of the hairy men that the Everest Expedition talk about, and the Tibetans, according to them, call the Abominable Snowman.

Speaking to the best of my recollection, he was a little under 6 ft. high, almost stark naked in that bitter cold -- it was the month of November. He was a kind of pale yellow all over, about the colour of a Chinaman, a shock of matted hair on his head, little hair on his face, highly splayed feet, and large, formidable hands. His muscular development in the arms, thighs, legs and chest was terrific. He had in his hand what seemed to be some form of primitive bow."
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
Analis said:
oldrover said:
Also there’s no point in denying that there’s a lot of motivation to promote Bigfoot as it is a sizeable commercial venture, just take a look at this non exhaustive list of books on the subject;
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/review ... terial.htm
Yes, but as with many books on the paranormal, notably UFOs, how many are really making a fortune out of them ? Bigfootology is mainly a hobby.
Though there is the chap in the USA -- closely associated with the Bigfoot Field Research Association -- who charges people hefty sums to take part in accompanied nocturnal "expeditions", camping out in alleged Bigfoot hot-spots. These events ususally seem to feature shadowy shapes moving around at the edge of the camp-grounds, and objects being thrown at the tents; but no attempt is ever allowed, to get really close up to "whatever-it-is" -- too potentially dangerous...

I have the impression that the majority of people in the Americal Bigfoot community -- "believers", sceptics, and "not-sures" alike -- regard this gentleman as a latter-day Phineas Barnum; and are either outraged by these ventures of his, or find them laughter-provoking.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
"Quotes"-

stuneville: "If only every thread on this board could be conducted with this level of civility, I could retire."

oldrover: "Thank you. I've always found Cryptozoology to be a polite forum."

stuneville: "Oh, that you'd seen it a few years ago..."


Worth exploring the archives for? And -- the American Bigfoot scene can be very acrimonious and at times uncivil, on the Net sites concerning it. Downright furious personal, and subject-relevant, fallings-out -- notably between "believers" and "strong sceptics", with the greatest anger seeming to be on the part of extreme believers. One wonders at times, when the first Bigfootery-related murder will happen...

Meaning no offence to FTMB's American posters / readers -- maybe part of this involves the American tendency to go the whole hog over things, and take them with great seriousness, rather more than Brits are apt to do...?



rynner2 and stuneville, thanks for practical advice. Unfortunately I'm so clueless about these matters, that I think a browser is an ungulate, and a tab something that a generous person picks up...have found the hard way, that the only way in which I can learn new procedures, is to have a computer-savvy person actually physically present to say "do this...now do that...", which stuff I have to immediately write down. Will get my brother round to my abode, and ask for his instruction thus, concerning these things.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Firstly thanks for checking that Amyasleigh lordmongrove was right.

I think a browser is an ungulate, and a tab something that a generous person picks up
What browser do you use? It’s usually just a question of one click.

I’ve looked at that forum it is quite big, would you be able to link to some examples that you find particularly impressive? I would be genuinely interested.

I'd respectfully ask, re the just-above -- why is "the coincidence of the timing" a necessarily deal-breaking problem? This whole business is so extremely odd -- to the point that IMO very little would seem too odd to consider...
Major point there I’d say, and one which goes off in two directions at once. Firstly I do believe that the increase in sightings post 1950’s is significant, further that the amount they’ve increased by means that something has fundamentally changed since that time. As you suggest there are two main explanations; mine, and that there is a paranormal phenomena reacting to or influencing human culture. I admit there’s no way to say that your position is wrong, and contrary to the impression I might give I’m very strictly not inherently against it. It’s just that I can’t see it as the most likely explanation in this case. To me anyway there seems to be very clear media trail.

The second and admittedly far loser point is whether like me you think that there is a connection between Sasquatch and the man beasts from the rest of the world, if so then either way what stands for the Sasquatch must also stand for them. Of course I’m not asking you to accept that means what I think it does.

Analis I can’t agree with you about Arnold. Firstly I never made any mention of mass hysteria. Though it wasn’t meant to be, I can see that it could have seemed like it was implied. I’m not talking about anything so specific. I can’t see that there’s any successful way to argue against the flying saucer era beginning in the late 40’s, I’ve seen and read countless testimonies which do describe exactly that. The sound bite which was carried away from the case was the term ‘flying saucer’, it’s still with us today and probably will be in a thousand years. Problematic because although this is remembered as the key phrase, as you’ll know of course, it only applicable to the flight characteristics of the objects, but saucers become the shape most people are seeing. This to me is highly suggestive. And I believe it refutes your point here;

this phenomenon is well studied and its effects are known. We can observe that with various calls to witnesses on TV, or the kind of scares you mention, red under the bed scares, but also skinhead scares, terrorist scares, the 1938 Orson Welles scare etc... They have produced nothing of the sort. Despite that they were much more pregnant than the impact of a lousy press release, there is simply no comparison between them.
But Similarly, Ray Wallace's hoxes were a minor cultural event. Did they call a mediatic frenzy ? Yes, but quite limited. I don't believe that people believed they saw man-beasts because they had heard of Wallace's scams
Fair point, but I’m not suggesting that it was an overnight sensation, anymore than I’m suggesting the reports instantly reached their current volume. I believe it was still a relatively minor subject and would be second fiddle to the Yeti for at least another decade. In my opinion it’s after the Patterson film that it starts to really take off, and then we have the films from the 70’s and so on.

Which leads us to the question of how successful Bigfoot is commercially? I doubt anyone has ever made a fortune from it, but a living I don’t know, but possibly
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Bloody hell, have we? As in, actually caught, or am I being too literal? Spoors. pics, sightings I knew about, and I have to say never doubted they were really out there..
Yes Felicity the ineffectual puma trapped in 1980, also they’ve shot a few lynxes and jungle and leopard cats over the years. No leopards though, and I doubt there ever will be, not because they aren’t there but because I doubt there’s anyone in the country capable of catching one. I didn’t know there were any pictures though.

My personal favourite though which isn’t actually a capture admittedly, was a question on ‘Fifteen to One’ in the late 1990’s, which was roughly;

A mystery animal which attacked a dog and its owner in wherever recently has been identified by hair samples as being what?
Answer; Spotted Hyena

Also around the same time there was a document once shown on TV, and on a terrestrial channel, which listed unaccounted for exotics in Britain for that year or so, it was huge.

About cats in SW England there is as you say hard physical evidence for them though, also their numbers are going to be very, very small. Plus no animal on earth has the type of skills that they have, especially the black ones if as seems likely they turn out to be leopards.

so please don't regard relative quietness on my part as ignorance.
Keep it going - I will catch up and I will return!
Of course not, and don’t worry this tread will still be here
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,245
Reaction score
9,083
Points
284
oldrover said:
Which leads us to the question of how successful Bigfoot is commercially? I doubt anyone has ever made a fortune from it, but a living I don’t know, but possibly
Once a regular poster here, Jon Erik Beckjord once ran a Bigfoot Museum. (He died in 2008.) He's no longer on the Memberlist (I think he was banned for something...) but if you search for posts which include 'Beckjord' and 'bigfoot' there are plenty of mentions remaining. He was, IIRC, mainly into Bigfoot, but he spread his talents across other paranormal fields also.

EDIT: he has a wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Beckjord
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Thanks rynner I did as you suggested, he wasn't a very nice man really was he.

"Oh, that you'd seen it a few years ago..."
I see what you mean.
 
Top