The Source of 'Historic' Crypto/Beast Sightings

This is my opinion. Read it as such.

Is it more then a little likely that some --many?-- of the older 'beast' stories (especially those in rural areas) could be the works of the collective, scared mind of those close to the events?

To be more specific: Sometimes it is much easier to accept the incredible (it was a beast; killing about the country side) than reality (it was a man, a sociopath, who has been killing in horrific ways).

Man seems to identify with those aspects of nature which compliment his view of himself. Man, it would also seem, tends to distance himself from that which seems 'animal' within himself.

The many accounts which have man turning into beast and then commiting the act would only reinforce this idea. It wasn't man which commited this evil act, rather, it was the beast that he became.

You can recognize the evil of men without recognizing the mind of man as the source of this evil.

An isolated community in the woods is like kindling for the fire when it comes to letting the collective mind run wild.

Just a thought.

Or maybe I am just alone in that thought...

...damn.

I can see the merit in your post. I think vampires, werewolves, etc. can be explained by this theory in a lot of cases.

If one sees a human being doing certain unfavorable things that a human shouldn't do then your mind can play tricks on you, just by the pure shock of the situation. We're quick to create this fantasy world, because it's an easier way to explain things.

It's amazing how people can distort reality in so many ways. It wasn't that long ago that people with epilepsy were immediately dismissed as being "possessed". Even though that is more of a lack of medical knowledge, it just shows how the collective can be influenced in those ways.

Agreed.

I would also add that settings which allow for an isolated collection of minds would foster this 'fantasy' creation. By this I refer to rural countrysides in an older time (where most of these beast type stories originate) and areas which are, still, isolated and non-developed/begining to develop.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that many of our continuing 'beasts' (werewolves, vampires, jekyll and hyde, etc...) are perpetuated and survive by virtue of being related during a time of 'development'. These stories always have a core sense of the recently civilized man falling to the blood lusts and sexual cravings (no longer desires) of the 'lowly animal'; instinctually violent even.

Hmm...

[edit on 5/18/0808 by spines]

There is some merit to your opinion. Some, if not most, sightings probably do fall into this catagory...but not all. That's where the arguments begin.

My own sighting of a mysterious something a while back may be in this catagory...others in that area have seen something "sasquatch", so my sighting I automatically, with no real proof, assigned that identification to it. It may very well have been a sasquatch, but I don't KNOW. Trying to find out, no luck just yet, but one never knows...

There is more than a little validity to your premise. Humans see what they want to see in many cases, whether conciously or unconciously.

And I wonder if say some catastrophe happened where we lost all electricity and communication and systematically went back to pre-modern, more primitive times, if sightings like these would become the norm again after a few years.

In that situation would our minds revert back to the way they might've been hundreds of years ago? Surely chaos would ensue and people would begin to do horrible things to eachother. I wonder what kind of fantastical creatures we'd come up with then.

If anything I'd bet there would be a lot more vampire and werewolf sightings than there are today.

What about fairies, gnomes, etc.? Did/do they exist? I think we've lost our relationship with nature and therefore lost our ability to really connect with beings like that.

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]