Bigfoot from a different perspective.

[cloudshipsrule]

Personally I don't care if bigfoot exists or not. In my opinion, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I have seen, I do not believe a bigfoot creature exists. That aside:

Why is it important for some people to continue to believe there is a bigfoot out there? Does it make people feel better believing there is an innocent creature out there, still untouched by human's impact on the planet?

What is the psychology behind wanting to believe in something that probably isn't true or that really doesn't have any SOLID evidence to back it up?

When I was a kid I enjoyed believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny, and as I grew older and found out the truth I wasn't heart-broken. I didn't want to hold on to my beliefs as a comfort.

I suppose being a believer in bigfoot is similar to the beliefs held by someone who is a budding astronomer. An amateur astronomer has a fascination of the unknowns of space. "What might be out there that we haven't seen yet?" "Will I be the first to find it?"

Bigfooteans may be in the same category. Bigfoot is an unknown to them, A mystery. Maybe it's the mystery of it all that intrigues them and not really whether or not bigfoot actually exists?

I know there are a lot of questions in this thread. They don't need to be answered. Just trying to start conversation on the workings of the mind of a bigfoot believer....

[drapier]

Read David Daegling.

[lionking]

I'm certainly not a bigfootean, but I think it's all about the "what if" factor. True believers hold on to their beliefs because if true they would be some of the very few vindicated. A bit like global warming sceptics I guess.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

It's wishful thinking I suppose. If it were true then maybe there is magic in the world, something beyond the facts that we all know? It's not true, and deep down somewhere we all know it, but in some people it festers away and becomes a need, an obsession.

What is the accepted collective term for Big Foot bleevers then? Bigfooteans? Yetties? Nutters?

[Correa Neto]

Footers.
But they don't like it.

[Diogenes]

There is the spin-off denomination of Pattycakes ...

[Locknar]

"Bigfoot" belivers are correctly refered to as PETS: People for the Ethical Treatment of Sasquatch

[William Parcher]

Bigfooter is a common name and is generally acceptable by both skeptics and believers (Bigfooters). Footer is a derivative of that name.

But when describing themselves, many believers will choose to use the name Bigfoot Researcher.

Pattycake is a name I invented that specifically denotes one who is convinced that the Patterson-Gimlin Film shows a real Bigfoot. Not all Bigfooters are Pattycakes, but obviously all Pattycakes are Bigfooters.

Non-believers are simply called Skeptics, Scoftics, or sometimes Denialists.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I find Bigfoot Researcher a little pretentious, Bigfoot Searcher would be a little nearer the mark since there's nothing to research until you find the bloody things. Leading on from that I'm going to guess that some of these 'researchers' have already come up with latin names and sub-species for the object of their affection?

[LTC8K6]

Well, it would be fantastic if sasquatch was real.

Alas...

Now then, there is a group of footers who insist that an elk is a sasquatch. Elkers?

[William Parcher]

Self-proclaimed "Bigfoot Researchers" would argue against your suggestion that there is nothing to research. They research the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the texts and various medias on Bigfoot, and the proposed secondary evidence itself (casts, films/videos, broken trees, etc).

Bigfoot Searcher or Seeker would seem to be appropriate for many, but not all. Many strong believers don't (or can't) go looking for Bigfoot. Some of these are comfortable calling themselves Armchair Bigfoot Researchers.

Some have had some fun speculating (or predicting) what the scientific name for Bigfoot should be. Some want to give it a name right now, and other talk about a name after a formal scientific description (body in a lab). A few want it named after Grover Krantz.

[Tumblehome]

I find Bigfoot Researcher a little pretentious, Bigfoot Searcher would be a little nearer the mark since there's nothing to research until you find the bloody things. Leading on from that I'm going to guess that some of these 'researchers' have already come up with latin names and sub-species for the object of their affection?


Yep, they've got that covered already. One of them came up with the idea that Bigfoot is a remnant of Gigantopithecus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus), which actually existed up until about 100,000 years ago. That was used as the basis for the petition to protect Bigfoot as an endangered species:

The discovery of a species that was formally[sic] though[sic] to be extinct, scientifically classified as Gigantopithecus and now commonly referred to as Bigfoot.

http://www.petitiononline.com/sylvanic/petition.html

[Correa Neto]

I find Bigfoot Researcher a little pretentious, Bigfoot Searcher would be a little nearer the mark since there's nothing to research until you find the bloody things. Leading on from that I'm going to guess that some of these 'researchers' have already come up with latin names and sub-species for the object of their affection?
Well, based on alleged eyewitnesses' descriptions a certain bigfoot investigator, researcher, etc. claims there are 9 or 12 species or subspecies of unknown North American primates.

You should add to this the alleged hominids from other continents (mapinguari, almas, yeti, woodwose, Johor bigfoot, etc.)...

[Beady]

If there are all these varieties of unknown hominids, and if everyone knows so much about them, perhaps it's homo sapien that is mythical?

[Correa Neto]

That's dangerously close to Lifegazerism...

[Diogenes]

Well, it would be fantastic if sasquatch was real.

Alas...

Now then, there is a group of footers who insist that an elk is a sasquatch. Elkers?

The animal would be an Elksquatch ..

( I think I just made that up )

[RayG]

I've always preferred bigfoot enthusiast over bigfoot researcher.

RayG

[kitakaze]

Gaze upon the Elksquatch, my fellow sapien dreamfolk, as it hangs above the firmament amidst the ether. It calls to you...

http://www.capurromrc.it/devil/735wendigo.jpg

[Beady]

Actually, you're about 3,000 years late. Meet Herne the Hunter, captain of the Wild Hunt:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1894468aa7f80ede3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6713)

[William Parcher]

Both of those guys have to sit down at some time. That's when we get the butt print.

[kitakaze]

Actually, you're about 3,000 years late. Meet Herne the Hunter, captain of the Wild Hunt:Ay, ol' Herney... Rued the doorways, did he.

[Björn Toulouse]

....(snip)....Why is it important for some people to continue to believe there is a bigfoot out there? Does it make people feel better believing there is an innocent creature out there, still untouched by human's impact on the planet?....(snip)....





Bigfoot is a beautiful symbol of humility, and he leaves big tracks without saying a word.

[kitakaze]

and he leaves big tracks without saying a word.Except for when they talk. Google Albert Ostman, for a start.:rolleyes:

[The Atheist]

Personally I don't care if bigfoot exists or not. In my opinion, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I have seen, I do not believe a bigfoot creature exists.

I find this a fascinating subject - but not fascinating enough to read through 10,000 pages of the "Bigfoot challenge" thread.

That aside:

Why is it important for some people to continue to believe there is a bigfoot out there? Does it make people feel better believing there is an innocent creature out there, still untouched by human's impact on the planet?

I think that question is the same as these:

Why do most people believe in gods?
Why do some people think crop circles are made by aliens, despite knowing that they're made by humans?
Why do some people believe water can hold a memory which makes homeopathy work?

And all the others...

People just want to believe in something and I personally find the belief in sasquatch to be the most harmless belief there is.

That said, I will at least give the bigfoot guys the credit of having actual evidence on their side. Yes, most of the evidence is pathetically poor, but have you seen how much evidence the RCC has, yet still has 2 billion adherents?

What is the psychology behind wanting to believe in something that probably isn't true or that really doesn't have any SOLID evidence to back it up?

Ditto the above points, but there is another element to Bigfoot which is stronger than UFOlidiots, christians and homeopaths have - eyewitness sightings of a bigfoot* and actual plaster prints of .... big feet!

I see pictures of Jesus on toast and a dog's ass, but other than a bloke I know in Morrinsville who chats to Jesus every morning in his cow paddock, I know nobody who claims to have Jesus in either the wilds of Wyoming, Central Park, NY, or even Auckland, NZ. Lots of people claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus, but none of them can claim to have seen him taking a leak behind a tree.

Nobody has his footprint cast in plaster, either.

I guess UFOlidiots are the only other group which can claim similar types of evidence, but I don't know of anyone claiming to have been butt-####ed by Sasquatch. (In any case, I'm pretty sure that the P-G film one is a female, according to the "experts".) They don't have ET's footprint, either, but then again, they don't [I think] claim that aliens have size 25 human-shaped feet.


*Eyewitness sightings are particularly unreliable and sightings of things in the forest can very easily be completely wrong (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=1500945&objectid=10438060), as even highly experienced bushmen find out, far too frequently at the expense of their very lives.

I suppose being a believer in bigfoot is similar to the beliefs held by someone who is a budding astronomer. An amateur astronomer has a fascination of the unknowns of space. "What might be out there that we haven't seen yet?" "Will I be the first to find it?"

Bigfooteans may be in the same category. Bigfoot is an unknown to them, A mystery. Maybe it's the mystery of it all that intrigues them and not really whether or not bigfoot actually exists?

I don't think so. From what I've seen of bigfoot "researchers" they genuinely want [expect?] to be the one who either hauls back a dead one, or brings unmistakeable evidence of its existence back to the world. They are quite genuine and not many of them seem to be as irrational as other brands of mass-delusion.

I know there are a lot of questions in this thread. They don't need to be answered. Just trying to start conversation on the workings of the mind of a bigfoot believer....

That's probably the subject which intrigues me the most as well. I'm a member at Bigfoot forum and I find the people there to be a vast difference from the rabidly-insane twats who use psychic/UFOs/astrology.

I was surprised to find that instead of lapping up every "sighting" and footprint, lots of members at that forum are actually quite sceptical of a lot of the evidence and do try to be scientific in their approach.

One of the other big things about bigfoot is that it would actually be quite a stunningly cool thing if one were out there. I sincerely doubt that there is, but it's one wild hope I'm happy to see live on.

[Dragon]

Well, it would be fantastic if sasquatch was real.

Alas...

Now then, there is a group of footers who insist that an elk is a sasquatch. Elkers?No, no - Anne Elk (Miss) had a new theory about the brontosaurus.

[Cuddles]

No, no - Anne Elk (Miss) had a new theory about the brontosaurus.

So... wait... sasquatch is actually a brontosaurus named Anne?

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I think Bigfoot, by its very nature as a 'natural' legend, tends to attract a different type of follower than the UFO crowd. You're going to get more tree-huggers than Trekkies because of the subject matter, if you'll forgive a horrible comparison.

One of the things that bugs me about the majority of Bigfoot researchers is the way they treat the Patterson-Gimlin Film like the holiest of holys. It's far from conclusive, but to many in the BF community it's absolute proof. They see beyond the dubious motives of the guy that made it and see a giant female homonid. Take that film away and you have some ancient legends and some footprints, some created by hoaxers and the rest probably natural in origin. Weird noises in the forest at night? Wow, that never happens unless there's a bigfoot population, right? I think they're deluding themselves, and they get rather wound up when we dont share that comforting delusion.

[Correa Neto]

...snip...I guess UFOlidiots are the only other group which can claim similar types of evidence, but I don't know of anyone claiming to have been butt-####ed by Sasquatch. (In any case, I'm pretty sure that the P-G film one is a female, according to the "experts".) They don't have ET's footprint, either, but then again, they don't [I think] claim that aliens have size 25 human-shaped feet.
...snip...
I once was part of both communities (cryptofolks and UFOfolks). Bot have their share of übernuts. If cryptofolks have those who believe mystery animals are paranormal phenomena, UFOfolks have the esoteric ufologists. There are two main differences, I think. The first one is the size of the communities; being UFObuffs more numerous, the number of... uhm... How could I say... Extremists is larger. The second is that the nature of UFO phenomena (better say the nature of its "alien" interpretation) is more open to sheer speculation and fantasy than a giant bipedal apen roaming in the forests. You can't expect say, deep revelations about the universe and the cure of cancer from bigfoot (OK, chances are that some folks do).

Most footers from BFF are quite like the "scientific UFOlogists" I met (and once was). In this sense, they try to move away from what they consider to be the most unreal, unlikely or bogus aspects of the phenomena.

The nature of the evidence is quite similar. I dare say identical- eyewitnesses reports, questionable movies and stills. Footers have casts of feet, hands and butts? UFObuffs have UFO landing sites (no, not the crop circles) with landing gear impressions and claims of radiation and electromagnetism anomalies; they also have alleged radar contacts. They even have alleged pieces of UFOs. All this stuff with the same reliability level of bigfoot evidence- a slightly deeper dig shows the very same flaws. Oh, they do claim have alien footprints. Posted a link to this somewhere...

Not to mention that much to the embarrassment of footers, there is a transition zone between bigfeet and UFOs, since some reports associate them...

[The Atheist]

I once was part of both communities (cryptofolks and UFOfolks).

Great stuff, thanks - nice to see you came to senses eventually!