After watching a TV documentary about what they referred to as a bit of a mystery  I did a bit of googling.

As there are some of you interested in mysteries what is your opinion?

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska09a.htm

https://soartv.tv/blog/three-mysteries-of-death-valley-of-yakutia-in-siberia/



Dirk

I read the links you provided. What they both seem to demonstrate quite convincingly is that anecdote, when presented rhetorically as "anecdotal evidence", and especially when this includes accretionally constructed myth employing such anecdotes, achieves little epistemologically other than to totally subvert the meaning of "evidence". I actually found no evidence at all in the texts for any claim, but no shortage of claims either.

Besides the obvious parallel with what I have been consistently saying here regarding religion (something that seems to require constant assertion on a discussion site which ostensibly respects basic historiographical definitions of "evidence"), this particular group of claims also quite succinctly demonstrates a serious flaw in how modern dissemination of data via the internet, almost totally void of objectively applied standards of proof, has seriously undermined how we as recipients of information have traditionally performed the vital function of separating conjecture from fact. This function, the very first step that has to be performed before any extrapolation from data can be performed, invalidates in its absence any further discourse as a meaningful method of arriving at any dependable principle or established truth. Worse, it encourages instead a rather mendacious and fallacious form of discourse that resembles actual analysis only in so far as it contains verbal constructions purporting to be causally linked, though with a requirement for actual evidence having already been jettisoned at the outset can only then proceed to one end - a corruption of verity that leaves those who have confused this with "truth", "fact" or "reality" open to quite severe manipulation by others.

When you strip away the myth, anecdotal conjecture and fanciful theory that is designed to "support" equally fanciful claims regarding the existence of magma-inhabiting creatures living in metal corridors, etc, then one is left with what is obviously an airburst effect of admittedly large proportions but which, when the results of the effect are measured and analysed, compares quite accurately with other well documented events of a similar nature, such as that recorded in Brazil in 1930 near the Curuca river, or indeed the rather more modest (but still impressive) Chelyabinsk airburst as recently as 2013. The only genuine anomaly with regard to the event, and this is one that the mendacious exploiters of a "valley of death" myth are not shy of exploiting, regards the geomagnetic after-effect that one would have expected from the size, speed and angle of trajectory of the incoming mass and the forces generated by this mass at point of explosive disintegration (be it a meteoroid or comet with meteoric mass at its centre - both models work though evidence favours the latter). Currently the accepted theory is that the relative lack of trace magnetism attributable to the event, and its rather haphazard distribution in the area where it is to be found, both indicate a secondary phenomenon in which the denser ionosphere served as a buffer through which the effect of the overhead explosion had to negotiate - a "lag" effect that also has been measured to a smaller degree in detonations of masses relatively smaller than the Tunguska event with more modern seismic and pressure-measuring equipment in recent times when such detonation occurs above the ionosphere. This is not generally a factor with detonations happening at slightly lower altitudes or which proceed completely to surface impact - as would be more typical of meteoroids of such mass but with more acute trajectory - and from which most data for comparison purposes has been collected (the above named and similar meteoric impact events, as well as from various high yield atmospheric nuclear explosion tests over the years).

So, if the so-called "valley of death" conjecture isn't really predicated on any actual hard scientifically attestable data, and if - as demonstrated in your links - it also takes quite blatant liberties when assembling anecdote, myth, fictions (be they deliberate or not) and incorrectly analysed actual data before "presenting" resultant theory as factual material worthy of deliberation if not belief as genuine, then I do not think it takes a genius to work out what might be the more obvious reason for its presentation at all. Especially in this day and age when manipulation of fact and established truth is so easily performed using modern media, reaches and affects an ever wider potential number of consumers, who then can be readily manipulated to act even against their own interests in other more important areas once their capacity for critical thinking has been sufficiently eroded.

For reasons of respect for history alone we should be sensitive to such blatantly mendacious myth-peddling.

Is it "mendacious myth-peddling" though, nordmann?  There could have been a genuine mistake.  For instance, I've read that the myth of the unicorn may have arisen because someone from Europe saw a rhinoceros on his/her travels (this would probably me in Medieval times) and tried to explain the appearance of the animal and lo, the tale of the unicorn came into being.  Even though I'm one of the few on the board who belongs to a religion I agree one should try to find a realistic explanation for something rather than a "woo-woo" explanation.  I only looked at the first link provided by Dirk - I would imagine that with modern satellite technology any strange buildings or statues should be observable on a satellite picture.  The "lag" effect is a true phenomenon.  I remember hearing something about one of the dangers of the V2 bombs in World War II was that the bomb was more or less overhead before the sound was heard.  (One of my aunts - although not hurt physically personally - was affected and scared when a V2 bomb went off in London and the child she was carrying was stillborn; she never had another one).

I think there may be something in the human psyche which likes a mystery.    Is Nessie real?  (Okay I know it's 99.99% sure Nessie isn't real).  Would there still be interest in the Jack the Ripper murders if the perpetrator had been definitely identified?  Why is there still speculation about what happened to the Marie-Celeste ship?  I have a few mystery thrillers in my current collection of books on loan from my local public library, so I'm not immune to being intrigued by a mystery.

Addendum:  I do think "mendacious myth-peddling" is a splendid turn of phrase, nordmann and I may borrow (pinch?) it next time (if there is a next time) I try to reason with a conspiracy theorist (though I fear such arguments are lost causes).

There is absolutely no mystery about the Marie Celeste. A fictional creation by Arthur Conan Doyle in his story ""J. Habakuk Jephson's Statement".

Correction - there is a mystery.

Why has the fictional "Marie Celeste" eclipsed the factual "Mary Celeste", which was the original derelict?

If I put two left feet in it, (which I do appear to have here),  I'll soon be told, won't I Gilgamesh?  As to Gilgamesh/George's query why the fictional "Marie Celeste" is more often remembered than the actual "Mary Celeste" could it be because the second name "Celeste" has a French sound, so maybe "Marie Celeste" goes together better than "Mary Celeste" which could account for the popularity of the fictional name over the factual one.

Forgive me, but I haven't read the whole of the links provided. 

My understanding of the Tunguska forest is that it was flattened by a meteorite in the early 20th century. 

No need for nuclear explosions, it was a natural catastrophe.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

If I put two left feet in it, (which I do appear to have here),  I'll soon be told, won't I Gilgamesh?  As to Gilgamesh/George's query why the fictional "Marie Celeste" is more often remembered than the actual "Mary Celeste" could it be because the second name "Celeste" has a French sound, so maybe "Marie Celeste" goes together better than "Mary Celeste" which could account for the popularity of the fictional name over the factual one.

Actually it's arguably far worse that details Doyle invented have transferred themselves to the facts as we know them. Not unique, of couse, but it does help obfuscate the case.

Hatshepsut wrote:

Forgive me, but I haven't read the whole of the links provided. 

My understanding of the Tunguska forest is that it was flattened by a meteorite in the early 20th century. 

No need for nuclear explosions, it was a natural catastrophe.

Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite This suggests that Tunguska was not technically a meteorite, but a meteoroid, since there does not seem to have been a ground impact, but an airburst. That very similar event does seem to be the best explanation we have. There have been attempts to work out how much energy it released, and I wonder if the fact that these have been expressed as so many megatons has prompted some to make the spurious connection "20 megatons? Must have been an atomic bomb. That's what are measured in megatons" whereas it's just an expression of power v TNT.

There was an episode of classic (i.e. back in the day) Dr Who where the Daleks landed on the Mary-Celeste and those on board jumped overboard for fear of the Daleks.

Though I'm getting away from the topic of the thread - I'll have to look up the difference between a meteorite and a meteoroid now.

Meteoroids are space rocks too small to be called asteroids. They can become meteors if they enter the earth's atmosphere, but meteors only become meteorites if they survive to hit the ground.

The meteorite what exploded in the Tunguska area is not actually the topic under discussion but the so-called valley of death is in the Yakutia area.

What are these strange stuctures and what was the purpose ?


Dirk

The link I followed above says that information is unverified and incomplete, and that the exact location of the Valley is unknown. Any metal bits found could have come from the Russian Space programme, which the general populace would know nothing about. You can see how such a myth can easily grow.

Exactly, Hatshepsut, and what I had also probably rather too long-windedly pointed out above. Failure to discern between anecdotal "evidence" and anything observable, testable and confirmable before being admitted as evidence is not only a prime ingredient of myth construction but in all likelihood the very trigger that starts such construction. Even the better myths at least share this trait with the myriad inferior ones that abound on the "interweb".

What the internet however has introduced, or at least seriously exacerbated, is a second failure to discern between myth that accretes purely through easy dissemination without any motive other than to excite attention, and more traditional myth which has achieved longevity as its narrative encompasses and illustrates sometimes quite fundamental moral, philosophical or otherwise didactic principle deemed "useful" to keep on board by members of successive civilisations. What used to enjoy limited life span and in most cases only very localised distribution has now the ability to propagate unhindered across traditional cultural and geographical barriers and assume the proliferation previously reserved for more "meaningful" myth, along with a speed of proliferation that meaningful myth can never really enjoy anyway as its requirement to mutate in very specific ways order to retain relevance means that it actually takes quite a bit of input, imagination and sheer effort on the part of many people to keep it going at all.

Both are fair game for historical deconstruction, but whereas the latter often requires such deconstruction if only to separate the principle from its narrative context (and even to enhance that principle on occasion by "rescuing" it from distractive narrative elements) the former is often so void of any such noble motive or content, and is so obviously flawed in its construction anyway, that it generally escapes the attention of serious historical analysis as unworthy of the time and effort involved in debunking those flaws, and unfortunately for that reason too its lazy dissemination proceeds relatively unobstructed by intellectual intervention.

nordmann, I sometimes use YouTube videos that aren't too long as practise material to take the audio in shorthand in hopes I don't become too rusty in that skill.  I've liked some of Michael Jecks's historical novels - he has a series of YouTube videos and I've used them.  In one he mentioned that he always checks information he finds online with other sources.  I'm not and never have been a professional writer but I think journalists are advised to have any story they might cover verified by at least three independent sources.  (I think Caro said she has written for her local paper - maybe she can confirm this (or not) if she chances across this post).

Oddly enough, I've been listening to a podcast in the background while I type this and there's just been an advertisement for a different podcast described (paraphrasing a bit) as what would happen if David Icke and the X-Files had a baby!  I'll definitely give that one a miss.  I'll be honest in that I haven't read all the way through all the links above so I'll have to have another look when I have a few minutes.

I still think there is something in the human psyche (this human's psyche at least) that likes a mystery.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

Is it "mendacious myth-peddling" though, nordmann?  There could have been a genuine mistake.

LiR, I'm late addressing this point you made, which is a very valid one - though probably, in my view, not quite in the way you assumed when you made it. And forgive the longevity - but it's an important point too.

When myth is studied academically, normally as part and parcel of a wider academic field (excluding theology, of course, for reasons too long to go into here), it tends to fall into two rather distinct disciplines - what might be loosely defined as a "sociological" analytical approach and a "literary" approach, one aiming to fit the function and role of myth into a wider history of human development, and one more focused on its role within the broad sphere of human expression as it relates to communication of anything other than simplistic data, especially expression of concepts firmly rooted in human imagination. Within both of these approaches however it is very useful, if only for academic purposes of clarity, to differentiate between "legend" and "myth", words that are often used almost interchangeably by most people but which in fact do have very distinct etymological roots and semantic function that become very important indeed when one is teasing out historically deductive levels of credulity required to accept either as "true", the effect and importance of holding such belief within a culture, and of course the motive within that culture to have invested such credulity.

You illustrated your point with the example of the unicorn - and that the existence of this fanciful creature in myth was very likely down to human error in interpreting reports of actual observations of real creatures, such as rhinoceroses. So with your forgiveness I'll use your unicorn also as an example of what I'm talking about too. It is certainly a very logical assumption to make that garbled second-hand reporting of what had started out as a valid observation meant that by the time a genuine rhinoceros sighting had made it from one culture to another its already exotic quality had been erroneously enhanced so that it became something else entirely - and as you say this well understood "Chinese whispers" type problem with transmission of information requires no malice at all on the part of the relayer (we'll ignore those societies that seemed to have no problem accommodating both "unicorns" and "rhinoceroses" in their fauna lists - this can have arisen for a multitude of reasons, including some very convoluted "Chinese whispers" chains, so we can set aside the other rather less innocent motives that may also have accounted for their inclusion at times, at least for now).

This innocent misinterpretation of received data, in fact, is something that both the sociologist and the literature student would also immediately recognise as a fundamental factor in the development of legend, and it is important to acknowledge also that both would also insist on using the term "legend" here, which began as a shorthand way of saying "worthy of having been written down", implying a legend's previous reliance on oral tradition in its formation. Historically in fact oral relaying of legend probably accounts for the vast bulk of such transmission vectors anyway, especially with all but the most modern legends, as is evidenced by the extraordinarily long periods between when some of these legends first gained currency and when they were eventually written down at all, certainly in antiquity.

The reason they would not employ the term "myth" however is a crucial one; making it into lore, as with the unicorn, along with all the associated legendary claims associated with the artefact (such as the power to grant wishes, being tamable only by virgin females, etc), does not strictly speaking elevate the unicorn to "mythical" status on its own. At this point, no matter how much credulity is invested or by how many people in the veracity of the artefact's existence, it still represents simply a facet of that culture's lore - something that can never be attestable or provable as it obviously does not exist but which plays sometimes a very important role in narratives of some perceived cultural value, be they cautionary tales related to children or even simply as graphic and easily employed exemplars of very human traits which require to be acknowledged and understood within that culture (the unicorn from its first known introduction into lore became associated, for example, with purity of intent, grace, honesty, and other expressions of virtue). This is, quite literally, the "stuff of legend". Legends, when they're not simply rip-roaring tales told for entertainment value alone, are often narratives that relate values and concepts not so easily relatable through more prosaic reliance on verifiable or readily observable data, and in almost all cultures are often typified therefore by imaginative elements within them that overcome the limitations of the individual's own experiential capabilities. The Robin Hood story for example might have a quite realistic premise at its core and contain much that is plausible as a story, but it also contains elements that are quite implausible, and certainly contains a sociologically important element regarding how its creators regarded class, social justice, and some very profound examinations of morality (when is it "good" to steal, for example?).

If the unicorn had been left there then, in purely academic use of the terms, we'd be comfortable saying that it was therefore very much a "legend" and not a "myth". However this isn't where imaginative treatment of this particular artefact stopped, so it serves also as a good example of the crucial difference between the these two terms. Although "myth" - which began etymologically as a term related to oral transmission of data - might be confused with "legend" (and as you can see from the etymology there is certainly a semantic overlap), it is used academically to portray a much more complex facet of human behaviour and belief, one in which legends play their part but which also employs quite a few other aspects of how we think and behave to create something that far transcends mere legend in meaning and role. "Myth" is probably most simplistically used to represent a "package" of beliefs, certainly but by no means solely reliant on investment of credulity in the veracity of legendary components.

Sticking with the unicorn then we can trace a very simple method whereby legend becomes incorporated into myth, and in its case namely Christian myth at that. In fact prior to the emergence of Christian mythology the unicorn had apparently stubbornly resisted being extricated culturally from its mere legendary function, in which it was quite happy to appear in erroneously compiled natural histories, a few basic tales normally related to discouraging young women from sleeping around, and generally content to remain on the periphery of existing myths with no significant interaction with the more important elements of these myths at all. In Greek, Indian, Roman and other major cultures it popped up from time to time as part of lore, but in all these cases was rather superfluous a mythical element, its character and alleged activities already being more than adequately portrayed by other legendary creatures within the relevant myth cycles whenever such was required.

A thousand or so years after Christian mythology had started its slow accretion of elements however the unicorn finally made that ultimate step into actual myth. The reasons for this are quite complex, but it is certainly not unrelated to Christianity's favoured modus operandi when it came to myth construction of actively shunning and discrediting major elements of previous myths when assembling one of its own. This intentional discrediting of others' myths, going back to when such myths might indeed have been strong competitors for belief and held at least initially even greater cultural currency than the nascent myth could then enjoy, meant that Christianity was very circumspect indeed traditionally regarding which of these existing mythical elements could make it into its own and on what terms. Christianity therefore was quite rigorous in blocking transfer of lore, especially lore originating from existing myth, but much more open to adoption of other aspects of these myths that still served a purpose within its own - and top of this selective criteria was symbolism. Early Christianity was in fact a very greedy consumer indeed of such already established symbolic tropes and representations, though by the early middle ages most of the very useful ones had long been absorbed and the mythology more or less had all the most crucial elements in place.

However, unlike "legend" which generally requires no great alteration once established to impart whatever meaning it was designed to convey to subsequent generations, "myth" requires quite a bit of tinkering indeed to stay culturally valid, being constructed as it is around not only legendary elements but often quite philosophically fluid elements whose relevance and interpretation tend to shift and evolve as society itself evolves. One casualty in this process is often symbolism itself - some very powerful symbols lose their relevance almost entirely over time (ever wonder about the two-fingered gesture favoured by Jesus in traditional poses?), some innocuous symbols acquire huge importance by the same token (the crucifix over the fish, for example), and some rather more esoteric symbolism requires almost constant revision, replenishment, and sometimes even entirely new introduction.

No one knows for certain when precisely the unicorn first made its official appearance in Christian myth - it seems for the first thousand years or so to have been simply continuing its periphery role, especially in oral tradition, prancing and gambolling gracefully around the edges of the dominant myth just as it had done earlier within other cultures and their myths of choice. However its long established symbolism regarding purity and virtue, two qualities which have enjoyed a rather elastic history within Christian theology and often have come to receive huge stress on their importance, meant that it its eventual inclusion as a graphic symbol in Christian art was probably inevitable. This graphical use of the symbol transported the unicorn from legend to myth in an instance - now it didn't even need any stories in which it figured to qualify as a valid component of the myth (though these were duly created, as one would expect), but its inclusion as a symbol alone served two huge roles regarding propagation of the myth. Firstly it communicated to viewers a profound theological point regarding the status of virtue within that cycle, and secondly it subtly illustrated by its elevation above other culturally inherited tropes - and especially over those ancient mythical tropes that never made it at all into Christian myth - the power and priorities of the Church managing the myth, and managing the theology behind it. Every approved image and text produced within the Church carried as much importance in the fact of its actual endorsement as in its content and what it might be designed to convey. This was a didactic myth cycle at every level, and the unicorn's official promotion within that cycle served didactically as much a role in that respect as did its obvious symbolic relevance to notions of purity and virtue that the myth contained.

So now you can see why I'd propose that its roots lying in a likely "genuine mistake" made by someone trying to describe a rhinoceros, while probably very true, is of practically no significance whatsoever in its mythical adoption and role, though certainly of no small significance indeed if trying to adduce its initial introduction into legend. And why it also is a good example illustrating the difference between these two terms anyway. Whereas one can certainly search for agenda behind the inclusion of anything into legend and normally be content to ascribe any such agenda to nothing less innocent than pure delight in the imaginary concept, it is prudent indeed to search for more complicated agenda behind adoption into myth, a much more considered process with regard to role and effect.

Which is all a long way from Dirk's original more modern example, I suppose, except of course when one looks at his example as an attempt to contribute to what seems to be a more modern myth cycle presently at a very nascent stage of its attempted construction - one which includes within its "theology" (I know this is the wrong term but since theology itself can be construed as corrupted philosophy at some levels I'll stick with it) a huge disrespect for veracity, some very blatant and concerted efforts to invalidate or corrupt traditional methods of establishing veracity, and indicative therefore of how "legend" is easily formed through erroneous observation but, when it comes to agenda, can quickly become incorporated into current myth with frightening ease. Both play with human credulity, but the latter does so for reasons extending well beyond the legend itself or its content, and this is the thing to be most on guard against when consuming these legends, however they are presented or through whichever medium, and especially when they invite credulity.

Wow, that's very profound nordmann, and I may need to come back a few times to fully assimilate all the points you have made.  There is a book called "Lost Christianities" by Bart D Erhman which is one I want to read to when I get around to it (my list is ever growing longer).  The son of my ex-nextdoor neighbours was disappointed to learn that he wouldn't be seeing a unicorn when his mum and dad took him to the zoo (though that boy is an adult now).

I know it wasn't exactly what you were talking about but I was never a fan of using religion as a means of controlling people.  For a more mild example saying that every time a girl whistles an angel cries, though I doubt anybody would say that in 2019 but things like that were said in the past.  It is possible cults (not necessarily religious ones) are started by the manipulation of myths by charismatic teachers (though sometimes when I have seen cult leaders on TV I have wondered wherein lay the charisma but their followers must have been spellbound by it).  I've been doing a bit of reading about multi-level marketing schemes which seem to have something of the cult about them (think about chain letters as a very basic example of MLM).  Some ladies who had signed up for such schemes had had difficulties when they left (I'm glad to say they stuck to their guns and got the heck out of Dodge*).  I learned a new word "hunbot".  Apparently sometimes ladies involved in MLM went on to social media and contacted people they hadn't spoken to for some years with a pitch starting "Hey Hun".  Sorry, I've moved away rather from the unicorn and the Siberian valley.

* For people whose first language isn't English, Dodge City was a city that was featured in a lot of cowboy films and there used to be the old trope in those films sometimes about people being told to leave town by sundown.  With so many American TV programmes being shown on British TV of recent years the phrase "to get the heck out of Dodge" has entered British English colloquial parlance.

LiR wrote:

I know it wasn't exactly what you were talking about ...

Indeed - religion "per se", when superficially compared to the internet, is probably most relevant in analogous terms only in so far as one could say that YouTube, for example, is relevant to "flat earth theory" (one can choose in fact from a worryingly wide range of alternative crackpot examples on that medium, as you aware, but "flat earth" is as good as any). This particular so-called "theory" is based on a whole slew of what might most charitably be termed as "mistaken perceptions" on the part of its proponents and quite a lot of very vivid imagination too, if truth be told, and has been knocking around as a proposed "alternative" to sound scientific theory for way longer than the internet has been around. What YouTube in recent years has brought to the table is a medium that not only accommodates acceleration of its dissemination, but has also in fact facilitated a quite symbiotic relationship between the medium and the message, as it were, with both sides benefiting from the presence of the other - the medium accelerates the message and the message itself contributes to accelerating the growth of the medium.

That's more or less where the analogy ends though. One could draw attention to how the medium has encouraged through the prospect of material reward, for example, some very mendacious "peddling" of such messages, and certainly find examples within organised religion of the same thing. But to go down that route would lead one to dismissing a rather more noble function of religion in relation to myth construction, which is to use myth as a powerful tool in the translation of some extremely difficult metaphysical concepts that cannot otherwise easily be conveyed through other means. When one examines any general religion in that light it is hard to conclude that its "success" may not be owed as much if not more to the sheer effectiveness of its mythical content than to its theological output and other associated treatise.

Which is a roundabout way of getting back to my original point regarding the importance of distinguishing between "legend" and "myth" in almost every instance where the two are more commonly or colloquially confused through being used interchangeably. In the case of religion, where the intention of its promulgators has very often historically been a rather noble intention to "explain" the universe and our part within it, "myth" will always by far exceed in importance, composition and relevance the sum total of whatever "legends" it may contain, and religions which traditionally have placed inordinate emphasis on belief in "legend" at the expense of constructing a valid mythology around those legends have also traditionally been rather marginalised, limited in geopolitical extent, and rarely very long-lasting in any cohesive form. And while they may still contribute to the culture in which they reside, they only very rarely reach a point where they could be said to describe the culture itself. That status has always been the preserve of religions whose myth cycle itself is robust and adaptable enough to cross several barriers - be they intellectual, temporal, physical or political, preferably all of these. Reliance solely on legend won't get them to this point.

In short, a good rule of thumb when assessing the potential for mendacity in the presentation of legend as credible fact is if one examines whatever possible myth such legend, whether its proposer knows it or not, is potentially contributing to. If the medium promotes transmission, especially rapid transmission, without any apparent thought for the potential myth that stands to be constructed on its basis, then this has always been a recipe for extremely dishonest contribution to the process. In the past, as in the present with the proliferation of internet-based transmission vectors, any new medium that accelerates transmission compared to what went before has also automatically attracted every form of crackpot, charlatan, and other unsavoury types in rapidly exploiting it, and what each has always typically tended to do is exactly what Dirk, with worrying accuracy, keeps finding and posting here as "historically relevant" subjects worthy of deliberation that he has come across while trawling the contents of other people's electronic storage. Exploiting the machinery of the medium to produce output superficially indistinguishable from "fact" is, in effect, simply a modern way of describing the manufacture of all legend from time immemorial. And, while this may be innocuous enough, whenever this construction comes with an implied demand that it be believed as fact, then it should automatically and critically become a candidate for sceptical analysis by any intelligent person intended to consume it as such.

Legends, especially in conglomeration, contribute to myth, as said. And in the case of the internet's accessibility to such an unimaginably diffuse, vast and ever growing global database of invention purporting to be fact, then one can only conclude that the myth resulting from this is one in which all respect for knowledge, education, and a pursuit of truth should be shunned by the subscriber. While I have no doubt that this myth will ultimately fail to gain enough traction to become globally dominant, we find ourselves in the rather worrying position of others who, in the past, faced a similar growth in anti-intellectual, anti-factual, and ultimately anti-human myth cycles being similarly constructed and disseminated within their cultures, with legend mendaciously promoted as credible fact being a prominent component of the process. History suggests that even a small amount of traction on the part of these can lead to inordinate suffering and social disaster, often for long periods, before things get better. One should really think twice before aiding, however innocent one's own intent, such promotion, at least before one sits back and really examines the over-arching myth to which one is also actively contributing by doing this.

Can we enjoy a mystery ever without contributing to "mendacious myth-making" nordmann?  I do quite like a mystery myself though I totally agree that it is sensible to look for a natural and rational explanation rather than, say, aliens from planet faraway being the cause of something.  Who knows, some of the conspiracy theorists may be hoaxers who are experimenting to see if they can dupe people. I don't know why some people want to make fools out of other people but they do - there was the Piltdown Man hoax for example.  Having said that some hoaxes can be funny as long as they don't hurt people (thinking for example of the man who started the Society for the Clothing of Naked Animals in the 1950s - or something like that, it might not be the exact name).  Then there are things like QAnon and Pizzagate which can be potentially dangerous.  I think Dirk had just seen something on TV he found intriguing.

nordmann, you don't have to do this (and I hope I have SOME critical thinking skills) but have you any pointers for a layperson such as myself as to how to perhaps sort the wheat from the chaff in any potential contemporary myths which are works in progress?

LiR wrote:

nordmann, you don't have to do this (and I hope I have SOME critical thinking skills) but have you any pointers for a layperson such as myself as to how to perhaps sort the wheat from the chaff in any potential contemporary myths which are works in progress?

We're all lay people when it comes to myth - it depends on investment of credulity and interest on the part of those who are not privy to its arcane side to have any worth as myth whatsoever. However I know what you mean - and that you are really referring to how to spot invention purporting to be fact when it has been intentionally presented as such for nefarious reasons, regardless of specific context. And this is also where a good understanding of myth and its social role can play a pivotal part. It may be simple to spot less than honourable agendas behind less than honest reportage, often of course containing less than altruistic portrayals of one's fellow human or an invitation to at least feel superior to these based on believing the content to be true, and this is as true for spotting "fake news" peddled for political gain as it is for spotting intentionally misleading elements of religious dogma, be it contained within its theology or the myth it engenders and encourages subscription to. However it is less easy to spot the same level of deception, or the agenda driving it, when the false data relates to a seemingly innocuous subject, in which "mystery" is often an effective hook used to elicit one's initial interest, but by no means the only such hook used.

If one thinks in terms of all such fanciful reportage, but especially that which contains even a suggestion that it should be regarded as the equal to factual reportage, as being a fundamental element of a resultant myth even if no one contributor necessarily understands the nature of that myth under construction or is even aware that this is what they are helping to construct, then one can steal a march over one's own tendency to credulity by simply analysing therefore what might the nature of this myth be if it ever gets to the point where it starts attracting subscribers. A very old myth, variations of which have included the Egyptian Thoth, Greece's Athena/Minerva, the Irish mac Bóchra, and quite a few others in other cultures, concerns the relationship between mortal humans and knowledge itself which, as in the Torah on which the Christian Eden narrative is also based (which itself probably owes much to Thoth and similar Sumerian mythical characters), tends to boil down to a rather explicit prescription for humans to leave the management of such a thing to a "higher" entity. Where these mythical entities have acquired andromorphic identity in myth of the period, they have also often encouraged the establishment of frequently very arcane but still rather socially prevalent dedicational subscription to a belief in these as gods or demigods (even mini-religions in their own right on occasion), in which "knowledge" is not only "protected" but is "decided" by an elite few, while the great majority are discouraged to pursue it in any form on their own initiative.

Further variations of this mythical theme can be traced through several cultures, and some very dominant myths, over all the centuries between then and now. As myth, of course, its elements and presentation vary hugely as time progresses, but one modern version is quite evident, I reckon, in a socially prevalent trend being articulated with ever increasing courage and clarity by its subscribers regarding the debasement of "knowledge" itself and adoption of this rather dangerous anti-philosophy deemed to confer actual "superiority" to its subscribers over anyone not subscribing (it probably has several potential names which could serve to describe it intelligibly and accurately - but let's call it the current "myth of the woke"). Which brings us back to Dirk's incredibly mendacious link and where it might fit in to this assessment of the myth it is helping to construct and popularise. So obvious is its role, in fact, that one can quite easily reverse the line of enquiry regarding ascertaining function and cause, and simply start with the myth of which it is so blatantly an element of construction, and then ascribe agenda, character and point to it on that basis.

LiR wrote:

Can we enjoy a mystery ever without contributing to "mendacious myth-making" nordmann?

Of course. But personally I prefer genuine mysteries myself.

When I was younger (and still sometimes now) I used to go to folk clubs and I can remember singers giving renditions of a traditional ballad collected in Lerwick (one version was anyway) in Shetland entitled King Orfeo which was based obviously on the Orpheus and Eurydice myth and Wikipedia being my friend I have found that there was an anonymous Middle English poetic version Sir Orfeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Orfeo

I lost my a previous comment on this subject but I came across a Russian travel site offering a realistic explanation for what happens in the "valley of death".  https://www.rbth.com/travel/327535-visit-russias-valley-death  They suggest a naturally occurring mixture of noxious gases in the water draining the valley accounts for the deaths of the animals and the headaches and other health problems experienced by humans who visit the area (which they are now forbidden to do though they can look at it from a distance).

In "Pompei" Robert Harris has someone die by walking across a depression which from the text appears to be one of those often encountered in volcanic areas which fill with carbon dioxide and thus smother any creature that enters them.

The main feature with the valley at the foot of the Kikpnych Volcano that contributes most to fatal consequences for fauna in particular is that, while iced over and snowbound through the winter, the dangerous gases build up while remaining trapped beneath the impermeable water layer above. When the thaw comes each year there is therefore a "double whammy" effect in that the initial releases are in very high concentrations (this accounts for the preponderance of dead adult fauna that can be observed and which obviously had not the energy or time to make it out again), while throughout the summer the releases, of lower concentration but still potentially fatal, are apparently insufficient to discourage more adult or larger healthy fauna from entering the region, but are still more than sufficient to be fatal to new-born mammals in particular, just at the time of the year in which most of these are produced, as well as to other smaller fauna with naturally high respiratory rates, older, weaker or sick animals, less mobile animals, etc.

Siberia is not the only volcanic area in the Arctic and Tundra regions. A similar "trap" for local wildlife has been observed in Alaska in many areas within the North Slope, and has also been tracked northwards as the permafrost retreats due to global warming and new instances arise which adopt the same seasonal pattern as the more established cases, already well studied, have shown.

None of this information is difficult to find within the vast amount of public information, journal articles, UN submissions, etc, published by reputable scientific organisations, and nowhere in any of the data produced by those who have actually studied the phenomenon is there a need to link the cause or effect to geomagnetic anomalies, as the first linked article from Dirk does on more than one occasion.

The article in question has been published online by a person/group identifying himself/herself/themselves as "Pleiades", which in the published "mission statement" promises to produce nothing itself but simply relay stuff found online (produced by "professors and similar", it says) that fits the originator's idea that we are being "seeded" by aliens from the Pleiades and other star clusters who, among other activities, sponsor an "illuminati" in our midst that has ensured that all of our education over all the centuries and in all countries has always been "controlled" so that we will never know "the truth". In the case of Dirk's linked article the original source from which the text has been lifted verbatim is named as "Nexus Magazine", a similar publication that primarily relays found content related to the paranormal, has no obvious verifiable authorship or actual source detail for much of its found content, occasionally commissions material with which the author is prepared to be associated (of which Dirk's article is an example), and which appears to feel no responsibility to its readers at all regarding the effect its lies might have on more gullible subscribers - the same issue which featured Dirk's article, for example, also has an article featured on its front cover "Selenium: A cure for AIDS and cancer?". The question mark is vital there, I assume - as the answer is obviously "No", though I haven't purchased the magazine to see if it reached the same conclusion. I somehow doubt it.

The original article was written by "Dr" Valery Uvarov. Uvarov's doctorship comes and goes when he claims authorship of stuff (and he produces a lot of "stuff" indeed) - on his own website he doesn't use the term though he does call himself a member of the "Russian Geographical Society" - which as far as I can see is about the equivalent of being a member of the National Trust, The Women's Institute, or any organisation which demands no great academic qualification for entry other than a willingness to pay the sub (though the WI may still have an absence of testicles clause, I'm not sure anymore the way "gender self-identification" is going these days). But don't get the idea that Valery doesn't consider himself an academic just because the RGS is lax with its membership criteria. His own two main fields of expertise, he says on his site, are in fact as a "Paleo technologist" and "Projects ideologist". No - I don't know what these mean either, though in my own professional career I have certainly learnt to identify candidates for the latter self-appellation and have learnt equally well to steer well clear of them. But at least it shows that Valery can sound academic, even if "being" academic might still be a bit beyond his grasp.

To be fair to Valery, he may have taken the commission to produce a four-part diatribe about "The Valley of Death" for the Nexus publication for reasons of financial exigency as a timely opportunity grasped primarily in the cause of economic rather than academic principle, given his obvious lack of scientific expertise as exposed in his article. His main "business" in fact and which his self-proclaimed areas of professional "expertise" best suit him to pursue, though which I seriously doubt as yet has yielded much by way of profit, is in fact offering his services in the cause of "building giant pyramids", using ancient Egyptian principles, which will solve many of humanity's woes once constructed, including all known diseases and indeed all "negativity" that currently afflict us humans, apparently. The website offers impressive artistic renditions of what he'd like to do, which includes redesigning all hospitals in the world (as pyramids, of course), and in fact just about every known structure in which one or more humans might conceivably find themselves for any reason at any point in the future. As yet apparently he's managed to build three small plywood pyramids in a field, as far as I can see. But "from little acorns" etc. Maybe things will pick up for Valery eventually - he certainly won't fail from lack of self-promotion anyway. In fact - perish the thought - but maybe inviting financial contribution from gullible fools actually accounts for his income and not the "building" bit? No, what am I thinking .... after all, who would be THAT deceitful?

I could provide links to all the above mentioned pure shite that a very small amount of googling yielded within only few minutes of my time (that I will never now get back, unfortunately), however I don't see why I should join in the very transmission vector used to create bad myth about which I have already waxed as lyrically as I could in an effort to undermine. But by all means go googling to your heart's content too if you want to verify all of these "sources". An almost limitless abundance of rabbit-holes awaits you, so bring a decent supply of carrots.

Meanwhile I have a (rather more real) life to live ....

Was there a bit of snark in your above comment, nordmann and if so, why?  The article I linked was saying the problems in the valley were due to natural phenomena not paranormal occurrences, so I wasn't saying little green men from Mars might have caused the deaths of the animals.  Regarding time spent on the internet, I had been laid low with a summer cold and had taken it easy since Thursday last week though I am getting back to "normal" whatever normal is today.  So it's true I have had some time on my hands while I felt unwell and did perhaps surf the internet rather than do household chores.

No snark at all LiR, and I wasn't directing the post above to anyone in particular, but simply as an illustration of what I had earlier said regarding how myth is assembled and promulgated independently of the quality of its content. The linked article to which I refer is also rather obviously Dirk's, and not yours anyway.

However since you did ask earlier:

LiR wrote:

... have you any pointers for a layperson such as myself as to how to perhaps sort the wheat from the chaff ... ?

you can certainly take my post as an answer, and an extremely non-judgemental one that that, to your query.

Perhaps I was being over sensitive, nordmann.  Anyway, I've been out and interacting with people in the real world since I made this morning's comment so sorry if I was being thin-skinned.  Before the wackadoodlery that occurs in some of the darker parts of the internet blew up, conspiracy theories, even the daffy ones could be fun.  Nessie and looking for Bigfoot.  I think there are still people who hunt for Bigfoot though I don't know if anyone has found him or her yet.  But conspiracy theories just aren't fun anymore.

Re hunting for Bigfoot. Certainly sounds as if he/she has been found, by Mr Thomas Wright Waller, no less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1eK3x1PBI

Oh you naughty person, Gilgamesh, pulling an old trout's leg like that.

nordmann,

I read now all the comments you made in the last days...legends and myths...I read it all...as we discussed it that many times in the last years, I nevertheless understand it every time better with each new comments from you, perhaps not new, but said in another manner that I better understand...

I would add: that is what makes this board "great", but I hesitate about the word...as with a Trump: America "great" again...or a Johnson? making England great again or was it Great Britain?...or didn't he say that?...am I starting a myth now?...am I not that innocent as I am appearing?...

Kind regards from Paul.