I would severely take issue with the statement that taking Bigfoot as a purely biological entity will not work. In fact upon investigation it works very well, including the realization that "Bigfoot" reports are not all describing the same thing and that such reports routinely include mistaken impressions of bears (including in Pennsylvania.) If bears are responsible forsome reports and bears are biological entities, then it is the "High strangeness" aspect that is mistaken. Why on earth the "High Strangeness" aspect is even taken seriously rather than written off asjournalistic license and general hysteria seems beyond belief. Part of the problem is that most of the writers have NO grounding in biological or ecological research and in fact are persons who make a career of publishing sensationalistic stories.
I would severely take issue with the statement that taking Bigfoot as a purely biological entity will not work. In fact upon investigation it works very well, including the realization that "Bigfoot" reports are not all describing the same thing and that such reports routinely include mistaken impressions of bears (including in Pennsylvania.) If bears are responsible forsome reports and bears are biological entities, then it is the "High strangeness" aspect that is mistaken. Why on earth the "High Strangeness" aspect is even taken seriously rather than written off asjournalistic license and general hysteria seems beyond belief. Part of the problem is that most of the writers have NO grounding in biological or ecological research and in fact are persons who make a career of publishing sensationalistic stories.
ReplyDelete