<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Manatees In Merbeings Documentary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/merbeing-doc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/merbeing-doc/</link>
	<description>for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: sschaper</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/merbeing-doc/#comment-42172</link>
		<dc:creator>sschaper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:09:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/merbeing-doc/#comment-42172</guid>
		<description>Sailors would have been quite familiar with porpoises, though. Think all the way back to the Minoan mosaics. I don't think that they are the merlings, either. Unless the sailors had been a sea, a very long time.

I think that they are a result of myths of water sprites combined with overlong sea voyages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sailors would have been quite familiar with porpoises, though. Think all the way back to the Minoan mosaics. I don&#8217;t think that they are the merlings, either. Unless the sailors had been a sea, a very long time.</p>
<p>I think that they are a result of myths of water sprites combined with overlong sea voyages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Point Radix</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/merbeing-doc/#comment-42171</link>
		<dc:creator>Point Radix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/merbeing-doc/#comment-42171</guid>
		<description>Modern revisionists or “professional” myth debunkers, appear to be showing some element of bias in suggesting that the Merbeings are Manatees, insofar as the idea that the reports MUST refer to another mammal species. But I don’t see this as being necessarily the case. We need to acknowledge that in describing “unknown” creatures to others (who did not see the entity), the observer needs to reference the sighting to something known, and therefore comparisons to known fauna or objects are inevitable. Expressions of any concept are always constrained by “vocabulary” – some existing idea or phenomenon (no matter how imperfect) must always be used in trying to communicate the message of something new. Furthermore, with all due respect to our ancestors, we need to remember that in the past there would have been even less concepts to choose from in selecting vocabulary to put across the description of an unknown (at least insofar as observational – descriptive accounts of large fauna).

A parallel may be drawn to the Yeti; the name in itself is meaningful only to a restricted geographical area. Therefore, the idea of the Abominable Snowman was used. The “Snowman” here obviously was not intended to describe its appearance – it can be assumed that it meant something like a “man” which lives in the ice and snow-covered areas of the Himalayas. However, the majority of persons internalizing the description would have no idea what an actual Yeti looked like, so their brain would automatically link to the known concept of a snowman – worse yet an idyllic winter scene of children playing outdoors decorating their snowmen with hats, carrot noses and coal buttons.

While unintended, the use of a specific word in the description becomes entrenched. Like in the case of Merbeings then, our descendents would be highly confused in trying to figure out how a Yeti siting (if they still exist) could be related to a “Snowman” and would be very likely to reject the idea that it could be the same thing. Another example would be a description of an observation as something "moving across the sky in a manner similar to a saucer being skipped across the lake"  which unfortunately became a "flying saucer" (forgive this ufology reference, but it is a very relevant example).

So, to return to the classical merbeings – it is very possible that a proto-sailor (searching for a way to describe something he had seen while out at sea) tried to convey an idea along the lines of “something like a fish that was almost human in its behaviour”. So, the idea (and depiction) became a half-fish / half-human creature that probably looked nothing like what the restricted group of ancient seafarers had actually seen. The Manatee seems unlikely not only for its obvious differences to pop-culture mermaids, but also its total difference to a fish (I have never heard seals, sea lions, walruses etc being compared to fish). Therefore, if it really was a marine mammal, I suspect DOLPHINS – they are known to follow boats (and guide them back to being within sight of land), and in the early days would have probably been even more curious about the land-mammals (humans) and their crafts. While dolphins do not look human or even like classical mermaids – the sailor would have been at a loss to describe this “almost human fish-like being” and therefore by having to reference known ideas, the Merbeing became fixed in the minds of the people (the majority of whom would know them only from accounts of sailors).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Modern revisionists or “professional” myth debunkers, appear to be showing some element of bias in suggesting that the Merbeings are Manatees, insofar as the idea that the reports MUST refer to another mammal species. But I don’t see this as being necessarily the case. We need to acknowledge that in describing “unknown” creatures to others (who did not see the entity), the observer needs to reference the sighting to something known, and therefore comparisons to known fauna or objects are inevitable. Expressions of any concept are always constrained by “vocabulary” – some existing idea or phenomenon (no matter how imperfect) must always be used in trying to communicate the message of something new. Furthermore, with all due respect to our ancestors, we need to remember that in the past there would have been even less concepts to choose from in selecting vocabulary to put across the description of an unknown (at least insofar as observational – descriptive accounts of large fauna).</p>
<p>A parallel may be drawn to the Yeti; the name in itself is meaningful only to a restricted geographical area. Therefore, the idea of the Abominable Snowman was used. The “Snowman” here obviously was not intended to describe its appearance – it can be assumed that it meant something like a “man” which lives in the ice and snow-covered areas of the Himalayas. However, the majority of persons internalizing the description would have no idea what an actual Yeti looked like, so their brain would automatically link to the known concept of a snowman – worse yet an idyllic winter scene of children playing outdoors decorating their snowmen with hats, carrot noses and coal buttons.</p>
<p>While unintended, the use of a specific word in the description becomes entrenched. Like in the case of Merbeings then, our descendents would be highly confused in trying to figure out how a Yeti siting (if they still exist) could be related to a “Snowman” and would be very likely to reject the idea that it could be the same thing. Another example would be a description of an observation as something &#8220;moving across the sky in a manner similar to a saucer being skipped across the lake&#8221;  which unfortunately became a &#8220;flying saucer&#8221; (forgive this ufology reference, but it is a very relevant example).</p>
<p>So, to return to the classical merbeings – it is very possible that a proto-sailor (searching for a way to describe something he had seen while out at sea) tried to convey an idea along the lines of “something like a fish that was almost human in its behaviour”. So, the idea (and depiction) became a half-fish / half-human creature that probably looked nothing like what the restricted group of ancient seafarers had actually seen. The Manatee seems unlikely not only for its obvious differences to pop-culture mermaids, but also its total difference to a fish (I have never heard seals, sea lions, walruses etc being compared to fish). Therefore, if it really was a marine mammal, I suspect DOLPHINS – they are known to follow boats (and guide them back to being within sight of land), and in the early days would have probably been even more curious about the land-mammals (humans) and their crafts. While dolphins do not look human or even like classical mermaids – the sailor would have been at a loss to describe this “almost human fish-like being” and therefore by having to reference known ideas, the Merbeing became fixed in the minds of the people (the majority of whom would know them only from accounts of sailors).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
