Leaderboard

I can only speak for myself. I grew up loving horror movies, specifically monster movies. My favourite creatures were always the beast men. Werewolf movies were at the top of my list. I discovered Bigfoot at 8 years of age in the third grade in my elementary school's library with the books of John Green, specifically these here... These books started my lifelong passion for Bigfoot. From the age of 8 until my late 20's I was an ardent believer of Bigfoot. I researched every bit of evidence put forward, ready every book I could get my hands on, and would passionately argue for the existence of Bigfoot. It was by so deeply pursuing all claims of evidence that I eventually found that each thread pulled on comes to nothing. It was about 8 years ago that I went from believer to fence-sitter and finally to being fully a skeptic. That did not diminish my love of the subject and passion for researching it. I still love Bigfoot movies, books, and other material, but I enjoy Bigfoot as a myth. What interests me now are reliable claims of evidence. The reason this interests me is because I do not think it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I have argued against those who have said that it is not possible for Bigfoot to exist. When asked I usually state that I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested. Recently there was a claim of a non-human primate arm found in Florida. This is precisely what interests me. It's not an anecdote, it's not a piece of blurry footage, it's not tale told round the campfire. It's flesh and bone and something that can be examined objectively and definitively. I went in with the same skepticism I have always had, but no less interest. After researching all the photos of the bones available to me, I concluded this was not a non-human primate arm. It was no primate, not mammal, not even an arm. It was the hind limb of an alligator. My conclusion was later confirmed by the scientists and professionals who examined the bones. I was not in any way disappointed by the conclusion, nor was I relieved, I was simply satisfied to have a definitive answer about that particular claim of reliable evidence. There's no emotional involvement in whether Bigfoot exists or not. The only thing I can say is that it would be incredibly awesome if Bigfoot did exist, but I have never seen any evidence that would persuade me to make that conclusion. There is evidence. There is a lot of evidence. The problem is that none of it is reliable. Another person can conclude differently and they are more than welcome to. Many of the friends and colleagues I have become acquainted with in the Bigfoot community over the years are of the opposite position as me, that Bigfoot does exist or most likely does. This is not a position I begrudge them nor do I try and convince them otherwise. If they've seen the same evidence, examined the same claims, and if they find it persuasive, I can only hope it motivates them to find better evidence of the same kind of quality we have for every other mammal species in North America. There is nothing wrong with believing, particularly when you haven't been able to see all the facts or have been influenced by believers who don't know or tell the whole story. I know what this is like precisely because I was a believer for so long. What is not cool, what I object to, is when that belief becomes like a cult behaviour. When people start playing Woods & Wildmen, doing an adult roleplaying game and they ostracize and seek to belittle and dismiss those who do not share there beliefs. This is precisely the same thing many believers have an issue with when dealing with people who think Bigfoot is nonsense. I have no problem with a believer asking me why I'm here. It's a valid question. What I have a problem with is being told I shouldn't be here because I don't think or believe the things everyone else does. Many Bigfoot believers like to fancy themselves as being maverick thinkers, open-minded champions of The Truth that the rest of us are sheeple and blind to see. The irony is that many of these people are the most close-minded and cultish, dogmatic I have ever encountered. I love the Scott Herriott's, the Henry May's, and the Steven Streufert's of Bigfootery because they are great people, their enthusiasm is awesome, and they don't get mired in the cult behaviour. These are people that I thoroughly enjoy discussing and debating the evidence with and also sharing our love for various Bigfoot culture things, movies, old documentaries, etc. For every ten allcaps pounding howlers, there is at least one person one person like that who makes it a pleasure to share the enthusiasm with, if not the belief. Henry May thinks he's seen Bigfoot twice, Scott Herriott once, Steven never. I have no interest in trying to take away there belief and they have no interest in trying to make me believe. So what's the deal with skeptics? If they're like me, they love Bigfoot as a subject, they're open to the evidence, they haven't been convinced by it thus far, but are always open to the possibility. We're as much a part of the community as those who believe.

Hello kitakaze, I cannot adequately thank you enough for your two posts. In them you have described my own mind set far more eloquently than I could have ever done. Together they are one of the finest dissertations on what I consider is a truly mature skeptic's position. A nice portrait of what it means to be objective. Both hard-line ends of the spectrum should be sitting up to take notice.

I've provided plenty of things a serious person can take seriously if they choose. The absence of proof alone after this much time is serious reason for pause. Even some of the more famous bigfoot sympathizers such Goodall have commented on the lack of proof as concerning. The rampant hoaxing in the field is serious reason for pause. The utter failure of the testable evidence is serious reason for pause. The lack of a fossil record is serious reason for pause for some. The scientific fact that human memory is extremely flawed and unreliable is a serious reason for pause when evaluating the anecdotal evidence. The history of hoaxed tracks fooling some of the top "experts" in the field is a serious reason for pause when considering tracks as evidence. Shall I go on? There are serious reasons indeed for someone to conclude that bigfoot is most likely a myth. That you do not consider these serious reasons ( whether or not you agree with the conclusion) says a ton about how you approach this topic.

I agree with you Coffee. Seemingly some would need to see one for themselves, but I think some have belief systems so strong they might not even accept the experience. What I do not like with a lot of skeptics is that they refuse to accept there is any evidence. That shows a very closed mind. Dozens of times some of them on this forum have said no evidence exists. With that they are wrong. An open minded skeptic like many scientists I have heard, would admit that evidence exists, it just is not good enough to be convincing or prove anything. I used to be to be in that camp myself until I began to find evidence and ultimately become a witness in an encounter. But unlike many of the armchair skeptics here, and members of the scientific community at large, I was curious enough to go into the field and find out for myself. Scientists are self handicapped in that they are used to expecting public or other people's money to fund their research. They might be curious, admit Meldrum might be right about footprints, but are not going to put their careers, reputations, and livelihood in jeopardy by seeking grants to spend a year in the field looking for BF. Certainly skeptics are not going to spend their own money on BF research. I was curious enough, retired, and have the means. I decided to give it a year, spend a lot of time in the field, and if I did not find any evidence in that time frame give it up as unlikely and move onto something else. 5 months in I found my first footprint and had my first and best encounter at 7 months and am now hooked for life. Evidence is there if you look for it. Admittedly I am very lucky that I live in an area where I could do that and have some chance of success. Many places in the country that is less likely in spite of time in the field and good intentions.

Finally! I thought that little gem was going completely under the radar

The comment that I took exception to was that greater technology aka intelligence does not make a being superior......nothing could be farther from the truth. It's why we are here and Neanderthals are not. It's why we give our students tests, and why those that score low become ditch diggers. And it's why if we got into a show down with a civilization a million years older than ours? We would lose..... So back into the context of this thread, if your looking for physical evidence of Bigfoot? Best of luck! If your looking for physical evidence of aliens? (Biological or otherwise) Your either delusional or on a death wish.

We are all winners! Give everyone a gold participation medal.

LCB! You are as honest as the day is long! Anyone who can read can see that. So there's no need to prove it. Besides, for the People With Agendas, nothing you do will ever be beyond reproach. People With Agendas are not looking for the truth; they're looking for the opposite. And you know what they say: What you seek is what you'll find. If you're hunting for perfidy, every rock you turn over will yield it up to you. Not because it's actually there, but because your eyeballs force everything into that shape. That's the only thing you can see, because you've already decided that that's the only thing there. I love your picture. I see what you see in it. It's fabulous. And I agree with Lightheart: It's the journey, not the destination...... Your journey rocks! Thanks for sharing it with us!

Not every one is true, but are you sure all of them are not true? You're trying to prove a negative, which is not possible.

No issue with honest skeptics here. I have an issue with dishonest scoffers who call themselves skeptics and masquerade outright abuse of witnesses as "honest questions." MIB