posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:57 AM
Just to clarify, because I feel it needs clarification:
It is not my intention to say that all sightings can be explained by my OP/replys. The idea is that, surely, some fall into this catagory and
understanding which mindset(s) breeds such myths is an important factor which is often overlooked.
Pinning down the originating source of a myth can be difficult and oral tradition rarely comes without diverging, sometimes contradictory, plot and
character elements. These differences in the story can range from the spelling of a characters name to an almost entirely different plot line.
Regardless, it is important to attempt to understand the social, spiritual and economic situations of the myths oriigins. If the original myth can be
'explained by the times', then perhaps those future sightings should be reevaluated and reinvestigated.
I am not saying the 'whatever' sighted is not an unknown, it is always a possibility. But these 'traditional' beasts seem to steer people who have
witnessed the unknown down the same thought paths time and time again. Sometimes it would seem to have a serious affect on their retelling of the
events; as to fit them into the current popular idea of whatever it is they think they saw.
A cliché example: An unknown creature that resembles a dog does not automatically have be a werewolf...regardless of the state of the moon.
I feel that if we actually attempted to understand the story tellers, that we would not be chasing eachothers tails so much.
Pun very intended.
[edit on 5/20/0808 by spines]
[edit on 5/20/0808 by spines]