• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Myra Shackley

A

amyasleigh

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
813
Information sought. Myra Shackley, long-time researcher into “mysterious hairy bipeds” chiefly in the “Old World”. Book of hers, “Wildmen: Yeti, Sasquatch, and the Neanderthal Enigma” (publ. 1983), which I have at present on order from Amazon.

Ms. Shackley seems to be “a lady of parts”. I learn from Wikipedia, that her basic profession, archaeologist; but that she is also a priest of the Anglican church; and that in the late 1980s, she abandoned her research into “unknown possible hominids”.

Does anyone know, or have possible indications – was her abandoning above research, result of concluding that the whole thing was “imagination / wishful thinking”; or did her getting into Christianity, cause her to see “mysterious hairies” as being demonic; or is it otherwise/ more complicated, than “either of the above” ?
 
Haven't got any hard information to contribute, but it would be very dishonest of her to be making money from books propounding a phenomenon she no longer believed in.
Maybe she got tired of trekking round Siberia on not much grant funding.
 
She did lectureat Liecester University but i do't know if she is still there.
If i had to make an educated guess then her getting a dose of religion probobly made her think relic hominids were inconvenient to creationism or christianity in general.
 
No. I have it on very good authority that she just decided that a combo of advancing years and dwindling resources conspired, and she decided that perhaps her existing scholarship should just stand or fall on its own merit. Faith is neither here nor there when it comes to cryptozoology.

EDIT - for my part, I'd say she did more to convince me of the reality of the Almasty than anyone else.
 
Thanks all, for responses. Have received the book -- have so far "skimmed", but need to read in detail and digest. Per quick perusal, strikes me as mostly anecdotal -- though very interesting. Various "thorny thickets" seen -- if one publishes a book re a proposition believed at the time, but subsequently abandoned -- what, indeed, to do with revenue from same?

The religion aspect -- another potential can of worms, from more than one angle -- creationism, or otherwise. Being an agnostic, I don't understand a lot on this particular scene; but get the general picture that some creationists / "Young Earthers" figure that the more weird uncatalogued creatures roaming around today unknown to science, the better -- so long as they're truly flesh-and-blood fauna. Some American "Bigfooters" who are devout Christians are, I gather, wedded to the conviction that Bigfoot is a purely-flesh-and-blood creature which has somehow for all these centuries eluded discovery; because if BF were something supernatural, it would be a demon, which they would have to totally shun and flee from. Altogether, a strange business.
 
It was indeed a very good book.
A minority of cryptozoologists are creationists. Some use the idea of prehistoric survivors to bolster their crackpot ideas. I once wrote a long paper on Siberian cryptids including lake monsters. I did not so much as even hint that i thought these animals had anything to do with dinosaurs. However an American creationist sight plagerized my work and used it as an example of surviving dinosaurs.
I was beyond livid and got more angry when they refused to take it down citing some American law of 'fair use'. I bombared their fourums with abuse untill they relented, bastards!
I would have thought relic hominids would run contrary to their ideas.
I, like most serious cryptozoologists find creationist a rank embaressment. They are not actualy intrested in the animals as species themselves jut in what they might mean in supporting creationism. These peopleare so stupid, even if a living, none avian dinosaur was found it would not prove creationism.
 
As well as what most see as the weakness / far-fetched-ness of their arguments; concur, the majority of these folk are not interested in zoological matters as such -- it is just, of extreme importance to them to plug what they regard as absolute truth, on whatever scenes come their way, on which to do so. Their whole way of operating comes across as back-to-front, vis-a-vis what science is generally reckoned to be about: unbiased, even-handed investigation into how the world is and works. Our friends as above -- convinced that they already have the truth, and have a duty to spread it by whatever means, to "those who walk in darkness" -- pick and choose between different elements of science; roping-in those which they find tending to support their agenda, and ignoring or denying those which they find not doing so.

Of course it's by no means only followers of missionary religions who act this way. Some sceptics hold the view that certainly a good many Bigfoot enthusiasts perpetrate a similar travesty of the scientific method, in support of their conviction that the object of their ardour, truly exists.
 
I can assure the other members of the congregation here assembled that my being a Christian has never ever interfered with my Fortean, Paranormal or Cryptozoological studies.

But I sense that for some posters Christian automatically equals Young Earth Creationist. If that's indeed the case I'm pained to tell you that you're 150 years behind the times.
 
Of course it's by no means only followers of missionary religions who act this way. Some sceptics hold the view that certainly a good many Bigfoot enthusiasts perpetrate a similar travesty of the scientific method, in support of their conviction that the object of their ardour, truly exists.
Click to expand...

Speaking
 
OTR -- wasn't meaning to tar all Christians with the same brush. "Christian" covers a wide spectrum. There is, though, an (often vocal) minority of Christians who have problems with the idea of an "old Earth" -- in what I posted, was thinking of them.

oldrover -- if your post complete in itself, I have a comprehension problem --or was post maybe broken off?
 
Sorry, it's an expression that means that the description applies to me.
 
Thanks -- with you now. Well, I don't know of any place where wishful thinking is actually a capital offence...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top