Is the Bigfoot Forum losing interest?

[MIB]

19 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Interest in Bigfoot... Demographics?

 

How much is the topic of Bigfoot of interest in various generations?   Does this explain any dip in BFF activity?   

 

It is an interesting question.    Nuanced.   I think you have to separate those with a general interest from those with a specific interest stemming from some kind of personal experience.    I think what you're talking about is those with general interest, not those with experience.   

 

Unfortunately, the waters are muddied today by bigfoot becoming a sort of cultural "thing".   A lot of people are aware of the notion of bigfoot now who don't have much interest, don't pay the topic much mind.    That wouldn't have been true in Oct '67, for example.

 

MIB

 

[Trogluddite]

On 6/14/2025 at 7:58 PM, RedHawk454 said:

Forums in general are slowly becoming outdated ways of reaching out to people on the internet....it seems reddit, youtube, and sadly tiktok are replacing forums. 

In a similar vein, too sports sites that I follow which used to have vigorous discussions during every game and about every aspect of the teams are also vastly smaller now yet you get prompts to "follow" every single baseball player on X, Rumble, and those other platforms even if they hit less than Mario Mendoza.  

 

On 7/11/2025 at 3:38 PM, georgerm said:

... so maybe the Bigfoot forum will remain alive for quite a while longer....  

The Forums may have to change and even then may still get overtaken by the shift in communications preferences by different generations, as BackDoc pointed out. 

 

19 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Interest in Bigfoot... Demographics?

 

How much is the topic of Bigfoot of interest in various generations?   Does this explain any dip in BFF activity?  Most people around my age group (59 years old) got their Bigfoot interest by movies ... The only time you saw the PGF again would be a book or two you could buy or rent at the library.  ... 

 

As long as these generations feels interested in Bigfoot they will continue to consume the Bigfoot subject with TV Ratings and other activity.   This would apply to activity on the BFF.  ....   The younger generation replacing them might not have a deeper interest in Bigfoot since it didn't make up a big part of what they grew up with.   In that way, I wonder if we get less interest in the BFF based on fewer being passionately interested in Bigfoot. 

 

 Interestingly, while I'm of the generation that first saw Bigfoot on In Search of and The Six Million Dollar Man, I lost all interest in it until the early 2010s.  And even then my first reaction was, "this really can't still be a thing, can it?"  So I agree that as us older folks move on, the Forums will likely shrink because younger folks aren't as interested and don't consume news the same way.

 

Matt Moneymaker made a comment on a recent Bigfoot and Beyond podcast that younger researchers he has met haven't gone back any further than Finding Bigfoot. When he asks about John Green or Grover Krantz, he gets a blank stare and a "who is that?"

 

[Trogluddite]

1 minute ago, MIB said:

 

It is an interesting question.    Nuanced.   I think you have to separate those with a general interest from those with a specific interest stemming from some kind of personal experience.    I think what you're talking about is those with general interest, not those with experience.   

 

Would have answered this to, but you posted just as I hit send.  I'm one of the "general interest" folks. While my wife and I hike a fair bit, I've never seen Bigfoot (or a black bear) in the woods on hikes and don't expect to see a Bigfoot.  But its dragged me in because if its all a hoax, or misidentifications, that should be fairly easy to demonstrate. And it hasn't been. 

[Backdoc]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

It is an interesting question.    Nuanced.   I think you have to separate those with a general interest from those with a specific interest stemming from some kind of personal experience.    I think what you're talking about is those with general interest, not those with experience.   

 

Unfortunately, the waters are muddied today by bigfoot becoming a sort of cultural "thing".   A lot of people are aware of the notion of bigfoot now who don't have much interest, don't pay the topic much mind.    That wouldn't have been true in Oct '67, for example.

 

MIB

 

 

I will say I have not had any Bigfoot experience personally.  My guess is such an experience would be life-changing to those who have.  They might report it or not, but I have to think someone having such an experience is changed forever.  

 

I agree as you say Bigfoot has become a cultural thing.  Who knows if this is a good thing or a bad thing.  

 

I don't know if my childhood was typical but most of us who grew up back in the day (I was born in 1966) grew up with 3 channels on TV to watch.  If the Wizard of Oz was on you watched it that night or you couldn't see it again for another year.  Assuming 1/3rd of the country (3 channels to watch) was watching that means millions all shared the same basic experiences then.   There were a lot fewer things competing for our time.  I have to think for those who grew up then they all had a similar view of Bigfoot.   I always felt then Bigfoot or the Yeti was always presented as a real creature.  It seems to me the feeling was more of a universal understanding because the few outlets presenting Bigfoot as a topic (Peter Graves) made the argument to say Bigfoot DOES exist vs DOESN'T exist.   

 

The internet and media are now like McDonalds.  There used to be only a few items to choose from.  Now they try to offer everything.  

 

[norseman]

We have 8 pages of comments on this topic alone.

 

We may not be what we once were but we are certainly far from being dead.

[Backdoc]

5 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

 

Matt Moneymaker made a comment on a recent Bigfoot and Beyond podcast that younger researchers he has met haven't gone back any further than Finding Bigfoot. When he asks about John Green or Grover Krantz, he gets a blank stare and a "who is that?"

 

 

It doesn't help the show Finding Bigfoot never seems to actually find Bigfoot.   As some point it becomes a joke which I have to think does little to help interest in Bigfoot.  Because of this show, there has to be part of the public who would say, "Bigfoot, isn't that those people who are out there in the woods but never find him?"    

 

 

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

It doesn't help the show Finding Bigfoot never seems to actually find Bigfoot.   As some point it becomes a joke........

Yup. But when looked at from the point of "who profits" (always follow the money), the "finders" need to keep looking in order to profit. Once found, the profits will then go to the "officials", and by that I mean those authorized to do whatever it is that the authorizers want done.

[norseman]

5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

It doesn't help the show Finding Bigfoot never seems to actually find Bigfoot.   As some point it becomes a joke which I have to think does little to help interest in Bigfoot.  Because of this show, there has to be part of the public who would say, "Bigfoot, isn't that those people who are out there in the woods but never find him?"    

 

 

 

My question is what are they gonna do when they find him?

 

If they are pro kill? They will have a high powered rifle. If they are not pro kill? They will have an air gun and a biopsy dart or some method of collecting DNA. 
 

We have enough audio, video and dental resin tracks to fill a gymnasium. It’s not proof. It’s a scouting tool.

[Backdoc]

12 hours ago, norseman said:

My question is what are they gonna do when they find him?

 

 

 

 

Great Question!

 

I used to think we need to 'get' a Bigfoot by any means necessary with the goal of having one in a "zoo".  

 

Then, I saw Bigfoot's Reflection as while back.  I was moved by the thoughts of this guy (don't remember the name):

 

 

 

He made me think how sad it would really be if Bigfoot was in a zoo.  He said essentially when we go to the zoo to see apes, they just "seem sad".   While I also like to go to see the apes when I go to the zoo, I sense the same thing.  I never really deeply thought about that emotional concept until hearing this guy's thoughts on the movie.  I still am under the mindset of Gimlin where Gimlin says, "I just wanted to see it again"    I feel that as well.  That probably drives the feeling of wanting proof and the fascination of Bigfoot.  

 

What do we do with one if we caught one?  That is a great question.  

 

I do not prefer they shoot one but if they did, I understand why this is probably necessary.  

 

 

One thing I do know, things like this are harmful to the Bigfoot cause:

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Backdoc

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Great Question!

 

I used to think we need to 'get' a Bigfoot by any means necessary with the goal of having one in a "zoo".  

 

Then, I saw Bigfoot's Reflection as while back.  I was moved by the thoughts of this guy (don't remember the name):

 

 

 

He made me think how sad it would really be if Bigfoot was in a zoo.  He said essentially when we go to the zoo to see apes, they just "seem sad".   While I also like to go to see the apes when I go to the zoo, I sense the same thing.  I never really deeply thought about that emotional concept until hearing this guy's thoughts on the movie.  I still am under the mindset of Gimlin where Gimlin says, "I just wanted to see it again"    I feel that as well.  That probably drives the feeling of wanting proof and the fascination of Bigfoot.  

 

What do we do with one if we caught one?  That is a great question.  

 

I do not prefer they shoot one but if they did, I understand why this is probably necessary.  

 

 

One thing I do know, things like this are harmful to the Bigfoot cause:

 

Rick Noll. He was a member here once.

 

Look I get it. Science is cold and cruel. But science demands 2 type specimens of an extant species.

 

If it’s an extinct species? Then standards are lowered and even a fossilized pinkie bone suffices. They did extract novel DNA from said pinkie bone that they thought was Neanderthal and Denisovans were discovered.

 

Bobo is probably a great guy. But his methods are not scientific. He is out there looking for a personal experience, nothing more. Does he hurt the field? I would say no with the general population, but yes with academia.

 

This is why I like Dr. Mayor so much. She has discovered novel primates before. And while it may be boring to watch? It has already produced results. Fingers crossed.

[Backdoc]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

Rick Noll. He was a member here once.

 

Look I get it. Science is cold and cruel. But science demands 2 type specimens of an extant species.

 

 

 

 

Most agree 'science' wants a body.

 

 

Like Rick Noll (thanks for the name) I have become more emotional on the bigfoot concept and all the ramifications of such a thing.

 

I am looking at the shooting of Bigfoot by a hunter like I might my dog.

 

I love my dog but at some point, is she was terminal she would have to be put down.  There would be NOTHING about having to put her down I would want to happen.  Yet, at some crossroads in life we have to do the hard thing.

 

With Bigfoot, like it or not, a body will only satisfy science.  I am thinking it might even be more merciful for Bigfoot to be killed than captured.  The necessity of shooting one is not the same as the necessity of having to put down a pet dog.  It is in the same set of emotions involved somewhat in both issues.

 

If one has to be shot, it has to be shot.  I doubt Bigfoot would take to life in a zoo any more than we might.

 

 

[norseman]

19 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Most agree 'science' wants a body.

 

 

Like Rick Noll (thanks for the name) I have become more emotional on the bigfoot concept and all the ramifications of such a thing.

 

I am looking at the shooting of Bigfoot by a hunter like I might my dog.

 

I love my dog but at some point, is she was terminal she would have to be put down.  There would be NOTHING about having to put her down I would want to happen.  Yet, at some crossroads in life we have to do the hard thing.

 

With Bigfoot, like it or not, a body will only satisfy science.  I am thinking it might even be more merciful for Bigfoot to be killed than captured.  The necessity of shooting one is not the same as the necessity of having to put down a pet dog.  It is in the same set of emotions involved somewhat in both issues.

 

If one has to be shot, it has to be shot.  I doubt Bigfoot would take to life in a zoo any more than we might.

 

 

Reading about how smart great apes are at escaping their enclosures? (One chimp hid a lock pick in its mouth) I don't think Bigfoot can be kept in a normal zoo. It would be a maximum security prison that would not serve any purpose to humans or bigfoot.

 

The only non lethal option is somehow collecting DNA. Prove it’s real. And then tagging one male and one female with a tracking device and waiting possibly decades for them to die of natural causes. And then go collect the bodies. Would science be willing to wait that long? Especially if the fate of the species hangs in the balance?

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Rick Noll. He was a member here once.........

 

And one of the mid-era greats. It would be most interesting to have a few beers with the guy and see how he feels now.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

........What do we do with one if we caught one?.........

 

You'd let it go, because that's the right thing to do.

[Trogluddite]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I don't think Bigfoot can be kept in a normal zoo.

All we need to do is capture a bunch of mosquitos that have bitten bigfoot, extract the DNA from the blood they drew, then reverse engineer bigfoot by using DNA from some other species to fill in the blanks in the genome sequence, then grow a few and show them off in some sort of Bigfoot theme park!!! Genius!!