A Monstrous Reboot…
Posted by: Nick Redfern on November 13th, 2013
My latest Mysterious Universe article, which begins…
“If there is one thing that can be said with a high degree of accuracy when it comes to the matter of Cryptozoology, it’s that certain types of unknown creature are seen time and again, regardless of location. They are: (a) large anomalous cats; (b) oversized hounds with paranormal overtones; (c) huge, winged creatures; (d) lake-monsters; and (e) unidentified ape-like animals. But why should such a small, and clearly delineated, body of archetypes dominate the field of Cryptozoology? Read on…
“Some time ago I did an interview with Jon Downes, of the Center for Fortean Zoology, on the matter of this very question. Jon related to me an utterly fascinating theory that he and the CFZ’s Richard Freeman have developed. Since, in my view at least, Jon’s words are of profound importance, I’m going to turn matters over to him.”
About Nick Redfern
Punk music fan, Tennents Super and Carlsberg Special Brew beer fan, horror film fan, chocolate fan, like to wear black clothes, like to stay up late. Work as a writer.
It’s a really good article, but not exactly a new theory. I watched a documentary years ago about dragons that drew basically the same conclusion. Things that were deadly and scary to our ancestors, have been passed down to us basically as an in instinct. So now when we see something scary, or think we see something scary, or are simply trying to imagine something scary, we (the human race) all draw from the same set of scary things.
It is an interesting theory, and yes, one I’ve heard before too in basic terms. It’s that “Collective memory” kind of thing.
My problem with it is first–why is it some people “See” these collective memory things and some don’t if that’s what it really is? If the magnetic theory activates those receptors in the brain in areas such as the lake, then why don’t more people see that sort of thing?
Two, if it’s collective memory, then how come we get pictures (alright so most aren’t very good–especially when it comes to lake critters) and secondary evidence like footprints, structures and so on (in the BF arena)?
I still fall into the category of: just because we can’t lay it to rest once and for all doesn’t mean it’s not out there. I stand by the idea that humans, while in physical control of a considerable amount of the planet, are by no means superior to other species that may well have the ability to hide, avoid and flat out evade our attempts to capture or kill all other species.
It’s an interesting theory, but I’m not even sure how you’d go about furthering it and proving it.
This question reminds me of a recent internet discussion I had, regarding “proof of God” in the (assumed) orderliness of the (presumed) Cosmos. In short, a video detailed the infinite sequence in Nature of the “Golden Mean” as proof positive of the existence of “God”.
Now everyone should know that this irks me to a state beyond mere words. This “belief” cannot rise to proof – not any more than lipstick on a pig raises the pig to some higher status.
Believers and atheists take note: I’m having NO part of any supposed “proofs”, so come see me as soon as you find an autographed copy of the Holy Bible. Supporting evidence of Bigfoot, to name but one, FAR exceeds any supposed “proof of God”.
It may be; it may NOT be. Not for me to say. Certainly such proof lies outside of this plane of existence.
Survival of physical death? NOW we’re into something we can discuss in a rational manner.
Theory? Fine
But science is: testing that theory.
What percentage of sasquatch encounters, for instance, can be explained – proven false positives – by showing that the witness was simply morphing something known into some terrifying archetype?
I actually have had scoftical types go “THERE’S NO WAY WE CAN PROVE THAT!” and then continue to act as if I should continue to listen to them, and can’t simply ignore them henceforth.