The endless news cycles that the MSM trots thru - endlessly - means that consumers of the material (that's you and me) - eventually form a point of view about most of it. IE: Missing Children who's parents are suspects are evidently hot topics everyone wants to know about (and feel that they are at least better than them); Uplifting statements about the full economic recovery stated by the government are not to be challenged directly by `news' readers or with their facial expressions (how can they read this drivel without cracking up); The `summer fires' in the Western United States are something everyone wants to see daily in the summer (do they really get new footage or just re-use the same footage) ; and on and on and on.
As a diversion, and, usually in the summer months - (during the slow news time of year) - the media turns to what is reported nearly daily in the `paranormal internet news sites' -- that being, `Ghost' stories, UFO reports and even the occasional super snicker story (between the `news' readers - as part of the `fun banter' public-relations relationship the on-air hosts have for the public to feel close to them) `Bigfoot' sightings.
Indeed, as part of their `in-depth' - all sides of the story facade - the MSM will usually pony up some Bigfoot `expert' (often one who leads groups into the woods in search of Bigfoots) who will talk about the `evidence' such as the Patterson Film, castings of footprints, -- and direct sightings of all kinds and natures. And, as you know, seldom does the `reporter' ask anything resembling a hard question such as - `why no specimens or scat' -`where are the bones' (BTW, a google of bear bones will find that bear bones do get found in the woods, caves, etc) - `what is the local breeding population' - `never one roadkill - anywhere'.
So, really, because no serious questions are ever asked - it's all treated as a `fun' thing by the media - kind of a pompous one-up over the probable redneck who spends his nights in the woods tapping on wood; often, nowadays, toting much scientific gear to provide the `proof' of just one creature of the breeding population in the local area.
And, indeed, if you search the internet for video and stories - you will find `heat images' of Bigfoots - even videos of the heat images. You will also find the occasional `trail cam' that captures a `sliver' of an unknown entity - sometimes even looking like a `Bigfoot'. And, you will find in your search online (easier than all that woods trekking) `sounds' of Bigfoot and many many first person accounts of sightings of a Bigfoot that eventually ------ in all cases -------- leaves their field of perception.
Temporal entities. Temporal spaces in our common reality consensus.
So, lets just Barf Stew up, right now, the `perfect Bigfoot Sighting' - a Smoking Gun type of case. Ok, --- first, we'd have to have it on multiple video cameras operating at the same time and at least one of the cameras would be one with infra-red capability. Additionally, the sighting would be at a short distance (say under 50 yards) - it would be seen visually by multiple people in the party if not everyone. The `Bigfoot' would remain in sight for an extended period and would `signal back' to the `searchers' AND vocalize `for sound captures' of the creature.
Then, after the creature simply walked out of view and range of the recording instruments and searchers -- the searchers would be able to retrieve `direct evidence' from the site - INCLUDING a tuff of hair for DNA analysis (casts of the footprints etc) - indeed, even a fingernail would be found. And, all the `hard evidence', when the results came back `from the lab' showed it to be an `unknown' mammal - even with clearly different results than ever seen. And, all the hard evidence, would then be re-confirmed by other top notch facilities.
Now the question, would all the evidence above - be proof enough for you? Proof that a live population of Bigfoots are in certain areas of our country and indeed - throughout the world?
OR, would it mean that Bigfoots are materialized temporal entities - that are indeed REAL for a temporary time frame. That can be seen, heat sensed, and tested for DNA as proof of a temporal `indention'/actualization into our common consensus - one that can be visualized and quantified - BUT - ultimately, one without an ontological structure to maintain its realness. Its temporalness. It's qualitative-ness of its `space' constitution.
But, even if that is the finding, and ultimately, someday, is a position where fair minded people can find agreement; - it will also be a step forward in ways of thinking about other paranormal and fortean `events' - as a `temporal structure' that bends our common consensus reality into a `temporary special consensus' - with what includes a real ontological structure to be perceived.
And, suddenly - a real Bigfoot - will be known as `more' than an imaginary creature - and one that doesn't need a breeding population to propagate into the world. Or, needing capture to prove that it is real. (I think it would be like `capturing' a doppelganger of a dead person that appears - impossible.)
But, it will also mean perhaps, the first step onto the slippery slope of an agreement that NOT all of our reality ` is real' - and that perhaps other contingencies could `snap' the `programming of the software' entirely - leaving `us' as a `temporary character' in a whole different consensus.
Please tell a friend that you filled up at Barf Stew - http://www.barfstew.blogspot.com/ and have you checked out the BS sidebar and the great websites in the blogroll?
the only real proof will literally require a smoking gun. And a corpse.
ReplyDeleteI agree that under the scenario you describe M, the specific proof as to AN existence of Bigfoot would actually be of lesser importance...and probably easier to accept by skeptics and scoffers...than the simultaneous discovery that reality is much, much different than what we had been counting on.
ReplyDeleteOh, and FWIW, in case "tuff of hair" is not just a typo, it should be "tuft". And yeah, I know all the stuff about "grammar nazi", etc.
Charlie -- First, thanks for your comment. And, you know what - you are indeed correct.
ReplyDeleteJimbo -- Wow. You got it. My main point was that a phenomenology `answer' is more likely to me (I'm very into phenomenology) and people haven't even begun to consider what such an answer might suggest - for all experiences, normal and paranormal.
Thanks to both of you for being a reader of Barf Stew.
Rick Phillips