The BFF V The BFRO Forums

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Resume

Interesting pathology no doubt.

What I find facinating is the spittle-flecked invective directed at skeptics and scientists that don't buy into the footer's boutique fantasy. Acceptance is but a specimen away and many in the community claim to know exactly where this primate lives; so . . . go and get a specimen.

Ask why this hasn't happened and excuses (and hilarity) ensue.

Yep, they have places where they claim to see BF all the time, he throws gravel on the roof and windows, yells and knocks on trees but he never leaves hairs, tracks or poop and no one uses trail cams.

[The Shrike]

Interesting. The anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that it's women more often claiming habituation of some stripe.

If there's anything bigfooters enjoy, it's being recruited for studies of their psychological problems that induce them to claim to see bigfoots!

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Jodie

You also have to consider the fact that most of the ones we discuss are members here whether they ever post or not, they are certainly here reading every word we write.

If that's true, they don't seem do much self-examination.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

If there's anything bigfooters enjoy, it's being recruited for studies of their psychological problems that induce them to claim to see bigfoots!

That might even be a fair criticism, but only if you overlook the fact that none of these folks acknowledge any errors in their cognition; it seems like they've never heard of phenomena like hypnagogia, false pattern recognition or confirmation bias.

[RedRatSnake]

That sure is heaping helping of some fancy shamcy words, I bets them believer's just don't understand em, or just don't care to hear them cause it means there is no real BigFoot~

Tim

[Resume]

Originally Posted by RedRatSnake

That sure is heaping helping of some fancy shamcy words, I bets them believer's just don't understand em, or just don't care to hear them cause it means there is no real BigFoot~

Tim

Similarly to the "hundreds and hundreds" of mermaid witnesses who were disappointed to learn they had misidentified a manatee.

You can substitute unicorn, centaur, ghost, name your flavor.

"But you weren't there man," is the common rejoinder, as if that explains anything.

[River]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Interesting. The anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that it's women more often claiming habituation of some stripe.

If there's anything bigfooters enjoy, it's being recruited for studies of their psychological problems that induce them to claim to see bigfoots!

No way! You mean some women might be imagining the beast??!

[Jodie]

It was the habituators I had in mind, yes, some women are more public about what they think they are experiencing. Many more keep it private that I have spoken with but this seems to be a common trait.

I just thought it was odd and wondered if it was sheer coincidence or if it was some kind of tendency towards victimization. When I believed in bigfoot I never thought bigfoot was some kind of gentle giant, rather the habituators always came off as suffering from Stockholm Syndrome to me. Even then, I questioned why anyone would put up with it.

You find a history of abuse frequently in homes that claim poltergeist activity. Maybe this kind of "woo" is a symptom of PTSD where some people would rather deal with a fictional threat than with reality.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Jodie

It was the habituators I had in mind, yes, some women are more public about what they think they are experiencing. Many more keep it private that I have spoken with but this seems to be a common trait.

Actually they are not keeping it private if they told you about it. IMO, habituators want to tell folks about their frequent close interactions with Bigfoot. But they only want to talk to believers or those who won't make them out to be nutcases. They know that they do not have Bigfoots and are intentionally pretending that they do. They get personal benefits by communicating with others about what is going on with their habituation. They want to tell you stories that they made up. They want you to enjoy or be intrigued by these stories. Whether you truly believe them is besides the point as they only want you to act like you believe them. That's the whole point. The Habituator is trying to set up a fantasy game scenario for a group of like-minded people (it can be as few as 1 other) in which you have a storyteller (them) and storylisteners (other Bigfooters).

I would be willing to bet that these people do not interact with their own imaginary Bigfoot in their backyards. IOW, if you set up a hidden camera in these peoples' backyards you would not see them walking outside to talk to, feed, observe, shoo away invisible Bigfoots etc. unless it were in the context of another person (audience).

One great way to perpetuate your habituation lie is to only tell people in private and maybe no more than two at once.

Quote:

You find a history of abuse frequently in homes that claim poltergeist activity. Maybe this kind of "woo" is a symptom of PTSD where some people would rather deal with a fictional threat than with reality.

I wonder if people who would tell lies about ghosts and Bigfoot might also tell lies about past abuse.

[trebor]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

<SHOT HIM>
...While we're at it, maybe we should come up with a new name for the Unicorn too? Freshen up its image? Make it more 'fun' to say? Unicorn isn't so plural friendly either. When I finally see a herd of them, I'll want to refer to them properly, right?! Say something a little more 'horsey'? What about an ironic name like Pokey? Or, I got it, Hendersons Horny Horse. I mean, it does look like a horse.

How about Wood Horse?

Hmmm, sounds almost plausible.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

They want to tell you stories that they made up. They want you to enjoy or be intrigued by these stories. Whether you truly believe them is besides the point as they only want you to act like you believe them.

This is exactly what I witnessed when I hit the habituators thread on the BFF (Bigot Fundamentalist Forum) at first I went in all cocky asking them for evidence and proof of their story's and got nowhere, then I turned and became somewhat nice in a few different threads they posted in, all the sudden they responded with all kinds of little stories and offerings for me, you are right WP they don't have anything going on and just crave attention.

Tim

[Jodie]

I think seeking that kind of attention has deeper roots. I mean seriously, I can think of more positive ways to get attention. Why come to the internet to share knowing even those that believe in bogfoot are going to find it hard to swallow?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Jodie

I think seeking that kind of attention has deeper roots. I mean seriously, I can think of more positive ways to get attention. Why come to the internet to share knowing even those that believe in bogfoot are going to find it hard to swallow?

Some of these habituator types do seem to have deeper issues, though I wouldn't care to do a diagnosis. It's kind of odd that bigfoot enthusiasts constantly carp about not being taken seriously by science, or by society in general, yet their nuttiest constituencies seem to take up the most bandwidth.

Of course they just blame the terrible twin cabal of scientists and skeptics; this way, they don't have to cough up any objective evidence. Still, you'd think they might distance themselves from this stuff.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by Resume

Of course they just blame the terrible twin cabal of scientists and skeptics; this way, they don't have to cough up any objective evidence. Still, you'd think they might distance themselves from this stuff.

What gets me is that it seems no matter what The Monkey People stick together, despite the clan being so divided in many ways, you have habituators that are clearly whacked and work on their own, you also have those that think Patty is real in all her bulkiness and slow mo ways, then you got the crowd that says BF is a lightning fast wood ninja that can't be caught, there are footers that swear BF has inferred red eyeballs and can pop popcorn with them, we now have Wood Apes although can't be caught they are not anymore intelligent than a normal ape, and now the new and improved human Bigfoot that has yet to be documented, the list goes on and on, it's just so laughable, yet another reason Real Science won't even take a peek at poor Mr Sasquatch.

Tim

[Resume]

Originally Posted by RedRatSnake

What gets me is that it seems no matter what The Monkey People stick together, despite the clan being so divided in many ways, you have habituators that are clearly whacked and work on their own, you also have those that think Patty is real in all her bulkiness and slow mo ways, then you got the crowd that says BF is a lightning fast wood ninja that can't be caught, there are footers that swear BF has inferred red eyeballs and can pop popcorn with them, we now have Wood Apes although can't be caught they are not anymore intelligent than a normal ape, and now the new and improved human Bigfoot that has yet to be documented, the list goes on and on, it's just so laughable, yet another reason Real Science won't even take a peek at poor Mr Sasquatch.

Tim

Sorta like the ghost folks: hot spots= ghosts, wait, cold spots = ghosts; ghosts give off "energy", no wait, they use energy; they're incorporeal, no wait, they manifest physical effects.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by Resume

Sorta like the ghost folks: hot spots= ghosts, wait, cold spots = ghosts; ghosts give off "energy", no wait, they use energy; they're incorporeal, no wait, they manifest physical effects.

Ya just like that, but really really hairy.

Tim ~

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Actually they are not keeping it private if they told you about it. IMO, habituators want to tell folks about their frequent close interactions with Bigfoot. But they only want to talk to believers or those who won't make them out to be nutcases. They know that they do not have Bigfoots and are intentionally pretending that they do. They get personal benefits by communicating with others about what is going on with their habituation. They want to tell you stories that they made up. They want you to enjoy or be intrigued by these stories. Whether you truly believe them is besides the point as they only want you to act like you believe them. That's the whole point. The Habituator is trying to set up a fantasy game scenario for a group of like-minded people (it can be as few as 1 other) in which you have a storyteller (them) and storylisteners (other Bigfooters).

I would be willing to bet that these people do not interact with their own imaginary Bigfoot in their backyards. IOW, if you set up a hidden camera in these peoples' backyards you would not see them walking outside to talk to, feed, observe, shoo away invisible Bigfoots etc. unless it were in the context of another person (audience).

One great way to perpetuate your habituation lie is to only tell people in private and maybe no more than two at once.



I wonder if people who would tell lies about ghosts and Bigfoot might also tell lies about past abuse.

I tend to agree. These folks have imagined their encounters, not lived or acted them out in hallucinations. They are pretending to have lived such lives. But, the question is: have they convinced themselves? Have they converted their imaginary lives into remembered lives?

Also, considering female habituators: are their imagined bonding more likely with male sasquatch than female; do they spend more pretend time with males instead of females?

[Jerrymander]

I was surpised by the number of people (atleast the believers) at the BFF who reject the big bang and evolution.

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

I was surpised by the number of people (atleast the believers) at the BFF who reject the big bang and evolution.

Sort of goes hand in hand with their maverick views of science, which to be charitable, are unconventional, or to be uncharitable, unscientific.

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

Also, considering female habituators: are their imagined bonding more likely with male sasquatch than female; do they spend more pretend time with males instead of females?

They seem to claim bonding with female sasquatch most often. There is one lady that called her "friend" Chappingwa, but the lady sasquatch moved on after awhile, or possibly died.

Another claimed, not friendship, but reservation as the one she talked to most often was some kind of sasquatch witch. I wouldn't exactly call that bonding.

There is one lady habituator that says she only sees the males. If you check out her facebook page it is covered in photos of primarily herself rather than family photos like most folks have, draw your own conclusions for that one.

The guys that don't claim habituation, but recurrent encounters, usually say the ones they see are male.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

I was surpised by the number of people (atleast the believers) at the BFF who reject the big bang and evolution.

As suspicious and hostile towards science as many of these folks seem to be, this isn't surprising. Add in a general ignorance of how science is done, well, there you go.

Of course there's also the fact thay very few scientists give this fringe belief much more than a shrug.

All that's needed to generate interest, funding, research would be a specimen. When's that gonna happen?

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

I was surpised by the number of people (atleast the believers) at the BFF who reject the big bang and evolution.

That must be talked about in the Tar Pit, I know the majority of the people I have come to know from the (Bigot Fundamentalist Forum) are very religious, I can just imagination what goes on in there, it's no wonder they don't like us very much, here we have the scientific answers, there they have another myth.

I wonder if they know that god created the monkey in his own image, it's the only way that Bigfoot could exist ya know ~ side by side, hand in hand all religion against the proven evolution of the man.

Tim

[Jerrymander]

Yeah, I keep explaining to Mulder the difference between evolution and abiogenesis but he doesn't listen.

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by Resume

All that's needed to generate interest, funding, research would be a specimen. When's that gonna happen?

They apparently can't get enough fund to find a giant ape that is sighted by thousands from Alaska to Florida.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

They apparently can't get enough fund to find a giant ape that is sighted by thousands from Alaska to Florida.

All the funds that would be needed is about 3 bucks for a well placed bullet, but it seems despite all the expert hunters and the expert trackers and the expert Bigfoot experts and the expert teams of experts, no one can seem to find that one specimen.

Tim ~

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by Jodie

They seem to claim bonding with female sasquatch most often. There is one lady that called her "friend" Chappingwa, but the lady sasquatch moved on after awhile, or possibly died.

Another claimed, not friendship, but reservation as the one she talked to most often was some kind of sasquatch witch. I wouldn't exactly call that bonding.

There is one lady habituator that says she only sees the males. If you check out her facebook page it is covered in photos of primarily herself rather than family photos like most folks have, draw your own conclusions for that one.

The guys that don't claim habituation, but recurrent encounters, usually say the ones they see are male.

Any thoughts on what this all means?

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

Yeah, I keep explaining to Mulder the difference between evolution and abiogenesis but he doesn't listen.

The reason: creationists assume all natural explanations are of a whole.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

Yeah, I keep explaining to Mulder the difference between evolution and abiogenesis but he doesn't listen.

Back in the day I got along with him just like peas in a pod, we both liked the fact that BF could exist and all was just dandy, then came the terrible news that RRS had seen through the smoke and fog and came to realize that it really was just a myth and it was fueled by the very people that want you to trust them and call you friend, I got to the top of the crop and had the cult confide in me, I am here to tell ya the entire thing is a lie and and those that call you friend are using you, but, don't trust me just keep on thinking I'm telling a lie, until that one day when it becomes clear that you have been had.

Tim

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

Any thoughts on what this all means?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think women involved in bigfootery tend to be toxic and crazier than the men involved. I used to try to figure out what kind of crazy it was, but I gave up, it's beyond my ken. Stockholme syndrome as it relates to domestic violence was the closest thing I could come up with outside of some kind of delusional disorder. I don't think that it's a simple explanation like lying. In the immortal words of Miss Lula, my beloved nanny, " What kind of crazy do that be? "

[HarryHenderson]

To divert from this fascinating <burp> topic for just a moment, I have an unrelated question for the long time members here who are also longtime BFF members/skeptics. Specifically but not limited to The Shrike (Saskeptic), RayG and Skeptical Greg (Kitakaze too although his is a little different situation). WTF are you guys thinking?

Seriously, I'm curious what a present day membership in such a group has as a benefit. From everything I read here about that place, it's only getting nuttier and nuttier, as if it wasn't already at its nutty end when I left in early 2008. I mean, it imploded itself just a few months later and had to literally be reborn on the internet. Along with an accompanying reapplication of membership by everyone. The previous incarnation was gone. No legacy, no data base, no nothing. Thus, a real and vivid 'ending point' was right there ready made for you to finally give up the 'approaching insanity' and yet, you just spit in its face and dived right back in.

WHY?

And I'm not being critical, just really ******* curious. I left and didn't look back. There was nothing there I needed to see anymore. There was a Bigfoot alright, and he was us. Most of the 'players' whom I at any time had any respect for turned out to be mostly just disturbed, misguided phonies. I bet I've spent a combined total of maybe 30 minutes looking at anything there ever since. What have I been missing?

[RedRatSnake]

You are not missing anything but some good comic people implosion, the place is a looney bin, nothing like the old forum, not even close, I posted in the BFF(Bigot Fundamentalist Forum) friends thread about my experience.

Tim

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

. . . I have an unrelated question for the long time members here who are also longtime BFF members/skeptics.

My primary motivation for participating at the BFF is to provide information and commentary that promotes critical thinking. Doing that here is rather irrelevant, as the majority of people participating in discussions do not need that input from me. Doing that there is highly relevant, because a lot of people end up there who are honestly just trying to figure out if there's anything to this bigfoot stuff. So that's #1 for me: model good, skeptical behavior and critical thinking. (I hope I'm doing that there!)

A secondary motivation for me is to be current in my information about what bigfooters claim bigfoots do/are. Those claims evolve - as one would expect with folklore - so if I am to claim any authority on the subject I can't let too much pass me by. That seems to be the biggest problem with folks who are the best known "mainstream" bigfoot skeptics: their information is outdated and they say things that, to bigfooters, are clear strawman fallacies. This is why people like Ben Radford have zero credibility at a place like the BFF, but folks like me, RayG, etc. are largely tolerated. I cringe when I hear the SGU talk about bigfoot, for example, because their beginning premises about bigfoot are often way off the mark. That hurts more than it helps.

[The Shrike]

Just add, yes I agree: the BFF 1.0 was practically a "JREF-lite" compared to what the BFF 2.0 is today.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

My primary motivation for participating at the BFF is to provide information and commentary that promotes critical thinking.

How is that working out? Do you have many success stories to tell?

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

How is that working out? Do you have many success stories to tell?

How would he know? There are plenty (I'd even warrant that it's a majority) of posters who turn up curious about the subject, have a look around for a week or two, then leave. Some, no doubt, have been influenced by calm and sensible accounts such as Saskeptic's. Others are put off by excessive claims from some of the extremist protagonists who examine fuzzy films down to the pixel level.

Mike

[Resume]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

My primary motivation for participating at the BFF is to provide information and commentary that promotes critical thinking. Doing that here is rather irrelevant, as the majority of people participating in discussions do not need that input from me. Doing that there is highly relevant, because a lot of people end up there who are honestly just trying to figure out if there's anything to this bigfoot stuff. So that's #1 for me: model good, skeptical behavior and critical thinking. (I hope I'm doing that there!)

I haven't spent a heck of a lot of time at BFF because frankly reading more than a few posts there makes my head hurt. But I wonder though what kind of impact can be made at a place where those that claim they've seen this bigfoot thing are absolutely insistent that they couldn't be suffering from any cognitive bias or error.

"I know what I saw!"

So did the horny sailor that mistook a seacow for a mermaid.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Just add, yes I agree: the BFF 1.0 was practically a "JREF-lite" compared to what the BFF 2.0 is today.

You most certainly are well respected, I don't know if you are making any headway over there, seems to me no matter what evidence is debunked or even shown to have flaws, they just don't seem to care, if it ain't positive monkey it just falls on deaf ears, couple that with being from the JREF and it's just blasphemy to them.

Tim

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by MikeG

How would he know?

Oh, I should be more descriptive. At BFF there are lots of folks who say Bigfoot Does Exist. How it it working out with those folks?

You know, how is it working out with the believers?

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by RedRatSnake

.......seems to me no matter what evidence is debunked ......... they just don't seem to care, .......... it just falls on deaf ears, couple that with being from the JREF and it's just blasphemy to them.

Tim

As you are aware though, Tim, if you were to re-write this post and swap "BFF" for "Jref", "presented" for "debunked" , that is exactly the proponents on the BFF say about the JREF.

Mike

[William Parcher]

No Bigfoot evidence is debunked in any practical sense unless a Bigfoot believer says you debunked it. This is how it works in Bigfootery and those people do not care how the rest of the world works.