@cadiddy
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Better or differently developed? I see your point about adaptation but remember that not all morphology expresses adaptation (it could be an exaptation or a a kind of lucky benefit: like birds develop feathers for warmth and then learn to fly) One thing that intrigues me is the “spider crawl” since it would be–as far as I know–the only primate that stalks by crawling like a cat: mimicry of feline hunting? but then a behavior that aids in hiding from competitive fauna? I am at the limits of my knowledge of biology just talking about this. but as for not manipulating nature, I hear you. I think that in the anthropocene the sasquatch can become a symbol of future survival without technology. Another thing that I feel is obvious but no one talks about is the “tree structures” in the forests. It seems to me that one thing sasquatch is mirroring is the human bevaior of marking territory by building structures on it. Sasquatch are mirroring human structures (the tree structures are like tepees they are copying from some first world plain indian peoples)….so, in a sense, they are saying “this is us talking in your language, this is our territory.” this is my guess. But again, it would be nice ot hear from a primatologist to hear is this is something seen –the mirroring– by other primates. Do other primates mirror the behavior of other species to communicate to them?
I think Sasquatch is about evolution and what makes him so scary is that we are really seeing ourselves –or our evolutionary history– when we encounter the creatures. I would like Wes to invite more people like Meldrum on to discuss what other details from eyewitness stories might say about the way these creatures are adapted to their environments: upper body strength, their quickness (though heavier and taller, they run faster than we can), nocturnal ranging, family structure, scavenging and their pack-hunting behavior. I see a segment where Wes picks segments of interviews that feature key behaviors echoed in the reports and then asks the biologist/anthropologist to reflect on how this might indicate an adaptation/morphology different from known human/ape body development and bahavior. Just thinking out loud. Kind of a “putting similar observations in the same file” episode, as Bindernagle might say.
what Rick F said. Also, when we say “gov’t” we may be simplifying it: The state is not one thing: one arm or office doesn’t know what the other is doing. Well intentioned DNR people may not have a clue that Dept. Home Security has kill teams (or whatever). I would imagine too that the initiative to keep the myth silent changes when directors in the various branches retire or leave. Keep the soldiers/agents on the ground loyal and quiet. And with plausible denial, at the second tier, the people in charge of these branches of gov’t may not even know!
thanks for the feedback, people! okay then. bad idea. there are some blogs out there on hoaxing in paranormal. sum up the different reasons. maybe not much more to learn. I understand the argument that it muddies the already muddy field. and may associate this show with their deceptions. not good.
I like this discussion, but rather than focus on personalities…what about the problem? Isn’t the problem that the topic is so denigrated and spoofed, and people who have encounters are ignored, laughed at, mistreated or juvenalized. It’s the repressive nature of this “common sense” attitude that makes this hard to discuss. I thought talking to a hoaxer–maybe even a reformed hoaxer? someone who regrets it, who cops to it as a mistake, or maybe who believes that their past actions were the wrong route–would be a way to get to an interesting aspect of the whole sasquatch phenomenon. I am not interested in the people who do it for fame or money. That’s easy to figure out. I want to talk to the people who did it because they believed they were attracting attention to a legitimate scientific discovery. It would be the equivalent of talking to someone who fakes lab results to help promote their belief in a new scientific discovery, right? I bet this happens a lot.
hey people, thanks for your response! I was only thinking that it would help get at at the psychology of people invested in shutting down the conversation by making genuine research seem less credible. I never thought that it might give them even more of a platform than they already have. It wouldn’t surprise me that some hoaxers are working for the govt to purposely make bigfoot look ridiculous (sort of a disinformation tactic). No? There must be something threatening about the subject that motivates most hoaxers. Also, I wonder if there is an eyewitness account where someone goes out to hoax and then has their own encounter that flips them around to believing. Myself, I am open to the idea of interviewing a hoaxer, and maybe even pushing them to task on their intentions, asking them why they do it, and maybe even ask them to account for their behavior (it seems to me, no one really outs these guys). I can see Wes getting a lot of info out of one of these guys, what makes them tick, and why they go to the effort….
but maybe too, we shouldn’t just assume that hoaxers are skeptics, right? I wonder if some hoaxers are people who really believe in sasquatch and hoax in order to (in their minds) attract more support and interest (to help verify) what they believe o be a real phenomenon? (think: the police in the OJ Simpson trial –who believed OJ did it– planting evidence. It’s a lie that helps promote a truth…..Just a simple example of how this works). And from here, it’s a short step to considering maybe how some bigfoot tourism (guided field tours) is working in this way. Again, I am not saying any of this disproves the facts of possible existence, but just that we might need to complicate the “believers/skeptics” model that we might fall into when thinking of hoaxing. It’s the “believing hoaxers” that, in turn, give ammunition to the real skeptics who point to them as the single biggest source of “bad science” in the field?
Steven B, how you’re talking. Or mix up the questions. Instead of “what was going through your head when you saw this creature?” it could be, “what music do you think bigfoot likes?” or “where do you think they get their hair done?”
that sounds good. the idea is that there would be a question like, “based on the pic you chose that resembled the creature you saw, what would you say is different about what you saw?” and listeners could see the figure as the witness describes. So, for example, “it’s just like this image, but the eyes were bigger and farther apart,” etc etc
