Indian Yeti / Barmanu

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
Impression got by me, that Beckjord was a considerable factor in – at least on the American-Bigfoot part of the scene – any kind of paranormal-related notions about the subject long being held, by the majority of people on that scene, in total disregard and disdain. On the whole, in “Bigfootery”, there were two “respectable” viewpoints – “Bigfoot exists, and is an as yet undocumented purely-flesh-and-blood species”; and “Bigfoot doesn’t exist, but if it did, it would be a purely-flesh-and-blood species.” Anyone giving the slightest hint of any openness to paranormal ideas was, in the main, regarded as beyond the pale / certifiably insane, and was told so.

Seemingly, part of this anyway was due to all paranormalists tending to be tarred with Beckjord’s brush – re his assorted bad behaviour, up to and including heavy personal harassment of people with whom he disagreed (and he disagreed with a lot of people). With J.E.B. having been, permanently, off the scene for a few years now; greater acceptance of ideas in the paranormal ballpark would appear to be coming about these days, in American Bigfooting circles.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
What browser do you use? It’s usually just a question of one click.
Firefox is my browser.

oldrover said:
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.
Computer-fool that I am: this kind of direct-linking is beyond my abilities. Can give "sub-forum and page" for a few IMO fairly choice examples.

BigfootForums -- sub-forum "General Bigfoot Discussion". Relevant pages of said sub-forum, cited below:

P4: thread, "A 'scientific' approach to Bigfoot?"

P5: thread, "Louisiana Bigfoot Expedition"

P6: thread, "Do skeptics happily and blatantly declare 'knowers' as outright liars and frauds?"*

(*Not a "turns-away-wrath" sort of title -- on the whole, this thread could have got nastier than it did.)

P11: thread, "Questions for Dr. Meldrum".

As very often in life, the belligerent characters are in the minority -- most folk are reasonably laid-back and not super-ready to quarrel; but, "the old, old story..."



oldrover wrote, first quoting me saying "I'd respectfully ask, re the just-above -- why is 'the coincidence of the timing' a necessaily deal-breaking problem? The whole business is so extremely odd -- to the point that IMO little would seem too odd to consider..."

Replying to me,
oldrover said:
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.
I think that on this particular piece of the puzzle, you and I are probably at “agree to differ” point. I know that “paranormal entities might be – and might do – absolutely anything” can be thought a too glib all-purpose answer; and I have spells of being brought up short and wondering, “am I being ridiculously credulous and superstitious?”. Overall, though: just too many reports, from people whom I cannot but respect, of their seeing – occasionally, more than just seeing -- these things, for the “only in people’s minds” line not to seem, to me, more preposterous than my “anything’s possible in paranormal-land” one. As ever, “just my humble...”, and “your mileage may...”.

I pretty much concur with you: what goes for Sasquatch goes, I think, for the great majority of man-beasts worldwide. I can see the Orang Pendek as quite likely a fully-flesh-and-blood species; and feel that the jury may, just possibly, be out, concerning some things heard from the remotest reaches of the former Soviet Union (not the Caucasus and its Almas, which topic we have chewed over plentifully on this sub-forum in recent years). Otherwise -- MHBs are reported from some places where they COULD be around as fully-flesh-and-blood species today, in biological /environmental / planet-historical terms (parts of the Americas, parts of Asia, maybe Africa); and some where most would agree that they couldn’t (Oceania, most parts of Europe). The sticking-point re the former category is, for me, “if the things are purely-flesh-and-blood, why are they seemingly never killed / caught / found dead / clearly photographed?”
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Haven't had a chance to check the website but will do so soon. Sorry don't know firefox, had a look at a picture of the browser page but I cant see the same multi tab facility that I've got o Chrome, it's probably there but I can't see it.

I've just watched a programme called the Abominable Snowman on National Geographic, featuring Gerry Moffat, Jeff Meldrum and Ian Redpath. On this there was I think important issues raised about the physical/paranormal divide.

Firstly a Native American was interviewed, and stated that the reason Bigfoot was never caught was because it was a shape shifter. The narrator, Moffat, then said that this was a belief common to the Sherpas.

Later in the programme he interviewed a Sherpa family who stated very clearly that the yeti was definitely not a purely physical animal.

The Sherpas also said that its roar or the sight of one was capable of paralysing a human. They went on to explain, for those who it didn't strike as immediately obvious, that this was probably just a bit of a lyrical way to describe its frightening impact.

What I found wanting though was any attempt to address the other aspects which could not be accounted for without recourse to the paranormal, such as shape shifting. It was pretty much ignored.

Another thing that bothered me was Redpath's comment regarding the famous yeti vs yaks incident, you know the one. The blood drinking behavior of the yeti he said was unknown in any primate except ourselves, but he says this wasn't too unreasonable because if the yeti/bigfoot is a close relative of ours then maybe we share the same behavior. Since when do we speculate that their likely to be close relatives of ours.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,245
Reaction score
9,083
Points
284
oldrover said:
Another thing that bothered me was Redpath's comment regarding the famous yeti vs yaks incident, you know the one. The blood drinking behavior of the yeti he said was unknown in any primate except ourselves, but he says this wasn't too unreasonable because if the yeti/bigfoot is a close relative of ours then maybe we share the same behavior. Since when do we speculate that their likely to be close relatives of ours.
There's a Yak & Yeti restaurant in Truro (01872 272363) - perhaps you could make some enquiries there! 8)

There's also a Yaks N Yetis restaurant in Ross-on-Wye (01989 564963).
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Good Lord! a clue at last!

Actually I might start and the slightly more catchily named Yak Yeti Yak, 12 Pierrepont Street, Bath.

And they laughed at Eric Idle's effort in Waterloo.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
Sorry don't know firefox, had a look at a picture of the browser page but I cant see the same multi tab facility that I've got o Chrome, it's probably there but I can't see it.
A case, I think, for requesting a visit from my excellent brother -- who thinks cryptozoology is silly, but there's little he doesn't know about computers !

oldrover said:
I've just watched a programme called the Abominable Snowman on National Geographic, featuring Gerry Moffat, Jeff Meldrum and Ian Redpath. On this there was I think important issues raised about the physical/paranormal divide.

Firstly a Native American was interviewed, and stated that the reason Bigfoot was never caught was because it was a shape shifter. The narrator, Moffat, then said that this was a belief common to the Sherpas.

Later in the programme he interviewed a Sherpa family who stated very clearly that the yeti was definitely not a purely physical animal.

The Sherpas also said that its roar or the sight of one was capable of paralysing a human. They went on to explain, for those who it didn't strike as immediately obvious, that this was probably just a bit of a lyrical way to describe its frightening impact.

What I found wanting though was any attempt to address the other aspects which could not be accounted for without recourse to the paranormal, such as shape shifting. It was pretty much ignored.
Programme definitely sounds interesting. Not wanting to flog the “BigfootForums” horse too mercilessly: but there (more especially in the site’s former incarnation, whose voluminous archives are always supposed to be shortly going to be made available once more, but it never seems to happen); and on other sites with an interest in the subject; Native American Bigfoot lore has been voluminously discussed.

In my view, such discussion reaches a point where “the more you hear, the more confused and unsure you get” – situation promoted, I suspect, by the info’s being filtered through various posters’ perceptions according to the particular axe they have to grind re the subject. It would appear from these sources that various different Native American tribes and communities regard / regarded “Bigfootish-sounding entities” as variously, supernatural in sundry ways; human, though of radically “other” and usually hostile kinds; just another, non-human, flesh-and-blood creature; and some tribes (including in supposedly “Bigfoot-heavy” parts of the continent) have no tradition of anything answering to the description.

The Himalayan side of the matter: I find it hard to resist reference to a favourite book , broadly sympathetic and open to the notion of the paranormal on the “crypto” scene. The book essentially about Tasmania and, particularly, they thylacine; but makes mention in passing, of an (educated and travelled) Buddhist monk from Bhutan, whom the authors had met. Quote: “We asked the monk if the Migo [local name for yeti] was real. He said of course it was real, as real as anything. It simply didn’t exist in OUR reality.”

I do see that the monastic gentleman’s elegantly simple (rather attractively so) explanation for such phenomena, is open to criticism as too easy, lazy, and “if that’s the catch-all, what’s the use of taking any further interest in the whole business?”; but that point can be hashed-over endlessly, with probably little likelihood of one disputant “converting” another...
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
(rynner2 wrote: "There's a Yak & Yeti restaurant in Truro...perhaps you could make some enquiries there !
There's also a Yaks N Yetis restaurant in Ross-on-Wye...")

oldrover said:
Good Lord! a clue at last!

Actually I might start and the slightly more catchily named Yak Yeti Yak, 12 Pierrepont Street, Bath.

And they laughed at Eric Idle's effort in Waterloo.
I'm sure I heard, many years ago, about a Yak & Yeti (English title) restaurant in Katmandu.

A "winner" of a name, I suppose, for a Nepalese restaurant. The only such I've ever experienced first-hand, is near Euston Station -- its title, something to do with Gurkhas (the third thing about Nepal, that everyone's heard of...). I thought the food was nice, but nothing to distinguish it from that at many other restaurants with a northern-Indian kind of bent.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
I've looked through a fair bit of the forum Amyasleigh, as you say it seems to be a fair place, I did get the impression that it kicks off sometimes though.

Native American Bigfoot lore has been voluminously discussed.
Don't want to pester but if you did have n idea where I'd find this I'd be very grateful as it's an aspect that I'm eager to look at.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
I've looked through a fair bit of the forum Amyasleigh, as you say it seems to be a fair place, I did get the impression that it kicks off sometimes though.

Native American Bigfoot lore has been voluminously discussed.
Don't want to pester but if you did have n idea where I'd find this I'd be very grateful as it's an aspect that I'm eager to look at.
Unfortunately, so much of said discussion took place on the "Old" BigfootForums, replaced by the "New" ditto about a year ago. The archives from the "Old" BFF are supposed to be being made accessible again, at some time; but it seems very much a case of "don't hold your breath".

Not meaning to be a pain, but I'm about to go out of Internet range for approx. the next week. Some material will be findable, I'm sure, to refer you to; but will need some searching, not doable until I'm reunited with my comp. Will post once more, when that situation obtains.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Not meaning to be a pain, but I'm about to go out of Internet range for approx. the next week. Some material will be findable, I'm sure, to refer you to; but will need some searching, not doable until I'm reunited with my comp. Will post once more, when that situation obtains.
Not at all, thank you for trying. I'll have a go also with a 'new' search strategy, which may be more effective than my previous attempts..
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
353
Points
99
amyasleigh said:
Roche cites “reports of hairy wildmen being more or less enslaved in the French Alps, up until the 18th / 19th century. There are even reports dating from the 1950s, where old folks in the Alps remembered seeing the last of these wild men, begging for food in the villages, before they eventually died out. They were called ‘cagots’ and lived in stone huts in the mountains, where they looked after the sheep during the summer pasture. Apparently these huts can still be found in some remote areas. When this type of herding disappeared, so did the ‘cagots’ – they were not needed any more. These ‘cagots’ appeared to be similar to the Almas of the Caucasian area, i.e. a more neandertalian type of hominid.”

Roche is also quoted as stating that these “hairy wildmen” in the southern parts of France, were much reduced in numbers during the Middle Ages, owing to the Catholic Church – with a goal of getting rid of the creatures, not of ministering to them – finding means of branding them as diabolic, and thus having them killed in large quantities.
Roche's book is very confused, not logically presented. Notably, chapters revolve around researchers, not regions or type of creature. So that finding an information is difficult. The only relevant mention I found, which could relate to this quote, is of the presence of 'wild men' in the Dauphiné. They could not speak, but were used to the presence of people, and even regularly went into villages to beg for bread or to steal foods and clothes. They seem more like outcasts than almasties.

I am sure that they were not called cagots. This name was used to call a category of people who lived in the Pyrenees and their immediate surroundings. They were normal people, but were rejected. They were true outcasts like the Indian untouchables or Japanese burakumin. The etymology of their name, meaning shit, evidences that they were seen as impure. The origin of the taboo surrounding them is unclear. It is usually believed that they were considered as descendants of leprous, or sometimes of saracens.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
Not meaning to be a pain, but I'm about to go out of Internet range for approx. the next week. Some material will be findable, I'm sure, to refer you to; but will need some searching, not doable until I'm reunited with my comp. Will post once more, when that situation obtains.
Not at all, thank you for trying. I'll have a go also with a 'new' search strategy, which may be more effective than my previous attempts..
o/r: I'm back within reach of the Net, but for a couple more days not yet back to my home, where there'll be required gen and leisure to sort out references re BFF and maybe other sites.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
Analis said:
Roche's book is very confused, not logically presented. Notably, chapters revolve around researchers, not regions or type of creature. So that finding an information is difficult. The only relevant mention I found, which could relate to this quote, is of the presence of 'wild men' in the Dauphiné. They could not speak, but were used to the presence of people, and even regularly went into villages to beg for bread or to steal foods and clothes. They seem more like outcasts than almasties.

I am sure that they were not called cagots. This name was used to call a category of people who lived in the Pyrenees and their immediate surroundings. They were normal people, but were rejected. They were true outcasts like the Indian untouchables or Japanese burakumin. The etymology of their name, meaning shit, evidences that they were seen as impure. The origin of the taboo surrounding them is unclear. It is usually believed that they were considered as descendants of leprous, or sometimes of saracens.
I had read, in a couple of spots on the Net, about the Pyrenean cagots ("untouchables", but definitely hom. sap. sap.) -- if I'm right, their "untouchable"`status was fairly successfully done away with by the 1789 Revolution? -- but at the time I cited here, the quote from Roche, I refrained from mentioning the Pyrenean matter; didn't want, at that stage, to complicate things! I do get the picture that Roche got thoroughly mixed-up concerning the application of the name "cagot".

General impressions received about Roche's book, including your words about it in this post, incline me to feel that it would not be worth my attempting to acquire it, and if successful, battling through the French text!
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Thanks Amyasleigh I haven't had much of a chance to look yet either.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Just a little anecdote which goes no way to proving anything but it does have some value as it relates to the sasquatch/bear sighting question.

About 25 years ago I was seeing a girl who lived in an area which was adjacent to the recreation ground where the circuses were regularly held. In those days of course they contained animal acts.

Just before I met her, her brother was walking home one weekday evening and when he got close to his house he realised something was behind him, he turned around and saw a Lion, if the circus hadn't been in town I think he'd have seen what was really there, an Old English Sheepdog.

Either way soon the area was full of police marksmen, and another group raided the circus, who of course had all their lions safely locked up. And the next day the local rag ran a city Muppet sees ... type story with a picture of the dog in question. Incidentally he must have seen the dog hundreds of times before.

The point is that this bloke wasn't an idiot, he was very down to earth the sort that I'd have said was really unlikely to confuse a dog with a lion, yet he did.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover -- re your "lion / sheepdog" anecdote: I've no doubt at all, that a fair number of supposed MHB sightings result from scenarios of this kind. Would maintain, though: just too many reports, some very unlikely to fit this pattern, for me to have much ability to "buy" the proposition that "one way or another, it's all just inside people's heads".

As you say, the chap had lions in the back of his mind, because of the presence of the circus, and would otherwise in all probability have recognised his OES acquaintance for what it was. I've come across too many reports concerning witnesses -- people of a basic First World (or in case of [former] USSR, say Second World) mindset and education, whose local MHB was basically not on their mental landscape, thus not a thing which they'd be predisposed to misidentify something mundane, as (sorry, bad grammar) -- nonetheless they saw, or at least believed they saw, something extremely like a MHB.

(Back home and in "researching mode", very shortly.)
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
The truth is I really struggle with the miss identification argument, I hate it in fact, but I'm reluctantly stuck with it.
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
353
Points
99
oldrover, how did the observation of your friend's brother take place ? Notably, how long did it last ? Did he have time to detail his sighting, to observe at lenght what he was seeing ? Did he panick, did he flee ? How could he identify later that it was a shepherd dog ?
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Fair points, the truth is I don't know how long it lasted or how it was later identified as a sheepdog. I can only assume it was brief, but it was sufficiently strong or him to call the police out. I can't recall exactly but I'm almost sure he ran the short distance from the sighting to his house.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
oldrover said:
Native American Bigfoot lore has been voluminously discussed.
Don't want to pester but if you did have n idea where I'd find this I'd be very grateful as it's an aspect that I'm eager to look at.
Sadly, the great “treasure trove” re what sought, is in the “Old BigfootForums' " material – which we keep hearing will be made available again, some time; but increasingly, the feeling is that that will be believed when it happens.

Apologies for my poor computer skills, whereby I’m not able to do direct links – can only set out the URL and then “point in the direction”.

On the “New BFF” – www.bigfootforums.com -- threads on sub-forum “General Bigfoot Discussion”, with worthwhile content re Native American lore, are: sub-forum’s page 4, “Bigfoot and Native Americans”; page 14, “Salmon Spawning in B.c. – Increased chance to see BF?”; and page 17, “Who put the Big in Bigfoot?”.

The site www.cryptozoology.com has, in its “Hominids” sub-forum, possibly worth-it threads on page 16, “For Holiday... Attitudes towards Bigfoot in many North American cultures”; page 18, “Native American Legends of Giants do have Merit”; page 23, “Early Americans on Bigfoot”; and page 33, “Interesting Old Accounts”.

The website of the James Randi Educational Foundation – http://forums.randi.org/ -- contains a lot of interesting Bigfoot-related discussion, including one very substantial thread about Native American lore on the subject. JREF, being a great “citadel of scepticism and rationalism”, is in involvement with Bigfoot matters, weighted toward the proposition that the whole business is a social construct, and that there is no such creature as Bigfoot. However, discussion there on the subject is on the whole fairly civil, and not “scorn-pouring 24/7”; some of the debunkers are wistful former / would-be Bigfoot believers, and a few genuine proponents of the creature’s existence, participate.

The JREF has an enormous traffic, whereby retrieval of material therefrom is “complicated at best” – involving use of the site’s “search” facility, to do which, one needs to register as a user of the site. Don’t know whether you, oldrover, would be interested to the extent of wanting to do that. Supposing you were; if we wished to avoid gumming up the FT board – I fear that I don’t understand the workings of private messages on this board.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Brief reply, will reply properly later on but quite anxious to say got the email adress but suggest that you edit it out of the post just in case some non member trawling this site decides to start playing silly buggers with it.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
The website of the James Randi Educational Foundation – http://forums.randi.org/ -- contains a lot of interesting Bigfoot-related discussion, ...
The JREF has an enormous traffic, whereby retrieval of material therefrom is “complicated at best”
You aren't kidding.

Just a few initial observations so far;Firstly it's nicer here, second a lot of the Randi (I signed up) BF regulars seem to be ex BFF members, and they all seem to regard the 'change' in the forum as something kin to the sack of Rome. They also seem to get pretty wound up about suggestions of the paranormal, one claimed that the classic bigfoot era is over, the flesh and blood explanation is refuted beyond doubt and the 'lunatic fringe' were moving in. I didn't like them much, I'm sceptical but I hope I don't start sounding like that. It's not without some merit there's some interesting critical discussion there, but my god there's so much of it.

Overall with the Randi lot I don't think they're a clever as they think or could be if they did allow for the fact that they should consider the other side of the argument. One thing that really got my goat was the lumping in of Cryptozoologists in with alternative medicine and Creationists.

On the BFF so far I haven't come across an account which I could honestly say I believed yet but I've only read about two, so will continue. There was though some very interesting responses about the Native American tradition, they were pretty unambiguously nothing to do with any sort of bipedal ape.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
Wouldn’t have suggested JREF, were it not for the great “hole in things” left by the non-availability of the “old BFF” material. Agree that many JREF participants harbour a “jihad-ish” and indiscriminate loathing toward anything not in line with mainstream science; and as regards undocumented fauna, any paranormal-related notions are totally rejected. With my take on that subject, I daren’t post in any of the Bigfoot discussion on the site – I’d get my throat ripped out. I originally discovered the JREF site through the Bigfoot connection; oddly enough, I find certain parts of the site, quite agreeable places to hang out. All manner of stuff is discussed there; and many posters are basically decent sorts anyway, or can be perfectly pleasant when not wearing their scientific-rational-crusader hats.

It does seem to me that the majority of Native American traditions about Bigfoot do have it as “another – often very strange – kind of NA”, and / or a supernatural being; however, anything that might shed any kind of light on this perplexing issue, could be valuable.

www.cryptozoology.com contains a great volume of material, a lot of it – not only re the Native American / Bigfoot connection – interesting. And the site genuinely welcomes all views, over the whole gamut from hard-rationalist debunking, to the wilder shores of the supernatural. A lot of bandwidth is unfortunately wasted in fatuous “mutual admiration society” banter, and in bickering; but plenty of worthwhile material remains.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,964
Reaction score
5,232
Points
284
amyasleigh said:
Wouldn’t have suggested JREF, were it not for the great “hole in things” left by the non-availability of the “old BFF” material. Agree that many JREF participants harbour a “jihad-ish” and indiscriminate loathing toward anything not in line with mainstream science;
You can say that again! The closest we've ever had to an inter-MB skirmish was with the JREF. Several of their posters signed up over here to have a go: much of it was precipitated by a known troill, since banned in perpetuity by both boards, playing us off against one another. We ended up having email discussions at mod level to sort it out (same happened with ghoststudy.com, the ultimate in true-believer sites, so we're still maintaining the Fort tradition by falling out with each end of the spectrum equally :).)

But yes, the attitude of the JREF members who posted on here was quite breathtaking, by turns patronising, aggressive and just outright dismissive. The central tenet of "You couldn't have seen / heard / experienced X because X doesn't exist so now go away you poor fool" shone through like a watermark.
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
353
Points
99
oldrover said:
Fair points, the truth is I don't know how long it lasted or how it was later identified as a sheepdog. I can only assume it was brief, but it was sufficiently strong or him to call the police out. I can't recall exactly but I'm almost sure he ran the short distance from the sighting to his house.
I remember that years ago, a golden retriever or labardor dog afflicted with eczema on its whole body except neck and air, which gave him a distinctive lion-like mane, had been identified as the source of some 'lion' sightings. But from what your say, I think that it was a different instance.

Coming back to your friend, it seems that his sighting was brief, and that he was having lions in mind at this time. And that his vision induced into him a state of panic, as he ran to his house. You say that he was very down-to-earth, but I think that his reaction evidences that at the very least, he lacked self-control. What I think happened, is that it was a very common example of brain reconstruction of a brief sighting.
I experienced that often, seeing briefly a deer, a dog or a man, and then focusing on the source of the vision, and realizing suddenly that it was just a bush, a big stone or a stump. This illusion is well-known, its causes are identified. The brain tends to reconstruct imprecise sightings, be they due by fugitiveness or bad conditions. The illusion dissipates when the experiencer focuses on the source. Hopefully, not everyone who has this kind of experience panics and reports it... I think that had your friend not fled and concentrated on what he saw, if it was really a shepherd dog, he would have realized it. (Now, there is still the possibility that it was a genuine ABC... :mrgreen: )
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
stuneville said:
amyasleigh said:
Wouldn’t have suggested JREF, were it not for the great “hole in things” left by the non-availability of the “old BFF” material. Agree that many JREF participants harbour a “jihad-ish” and indiscriminate loathing toward anything not in line with mainstream science;
You can say that again! The closest we've ever had to an inter-MB skirmish was with the JREF. Several of their posters signed up over here to have a go: much of it was precipitated by a known troill, since banned in perpetuity by both boards, playing us off against one another. We ended up having email discussions at mod level to sort it out (same happened with ghoststudy.com, the ultimate in true-believer sites, so we're still maintaining the Fort tradition by falling out with each end of the spectrum equally :).)

But yes, the attitude of the JREF members who posted on here was quite breathtaking, by turns patronising, aggressive and just outright dismissive. The central tenet of "You couldn't have seen / heard / experienced X because X doesn't exist so now go away you poor fool" shone through like a watermark.
Didn't realise that there'd been pretty well a war FTMB / JREF (though largely the doing of a "malicious-for-fun-person").

A lot of people on JREF seem to miss out on their ostensible tenet, "blind belief / disbelief in something, following from dogma, is not valid". If it's THEIR, supposedly scientific, dogma...
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
A lot of bandwidth is unfortunately wasted in fatuous “mutual admiration society” banter, and in bickering; but plenty of worthwhile material remains.

A lot of people on JREF seem to miss out on their ostensible tenet, "blind belief / disbelief in something, following from dogma, is not valid". If it's THEIR, supposedly scientific, dogma...
Absolutely spot on, I've been trying o phrase that on and off all day but as this is day 2 of my attempt to give up smoking, concentrating is hard. As is trying not to fly off the handle at things, so about this;

But yes, the attitude of the JREF members who posted on here was quite breathtaking, by turns patronising, aggressive and just outright dismissive. The central tenet of "You couldn't have seen / heard / experienced X because X doesn't exist so now go away you poor fool" shone through like a watermark.
All I'd say is that without doubt much of what is said on the Randi site wouldn't cut it here, see;

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=20652

One thing that really does get on my nerves is someone who plays the part of the rationalist or scientific sceptic who hasn't got a bloody clue what they're talking about.

In fairness though they do make some interesting points elsewhere and it doesn't do to generalise.

Analis that possibility does indeed remain.
 

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
847
Reaction score
344
Points
69
Yes, that link -- good grief! Demonstrates that "scientific sceptics" can be as silly as anyone else...

The lady who went to Puerto Rico, is very active in a number of different areas of the JREF forums. From her posts in general, she seems to be a sweetie; but a zoologist she sure ain't.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Yes there's nothing unpleasant on the page at all, it's not her so much that surprised me it's the, to be frank, general low level of awareness. There are some corkers there but I'm not honestly sure if they're joking or not. The long response about the borhyaenids etc is serious though and really shows a lack of understanding.

I have to wonder whether the REF are a little to culturally specific to the US hence the heavy focus on bigfoot.
 
Top