Why Do You Want To Find Bigfoot ?

[Guest]

I'm just curious. Why can people go around calling people denialist, scofftic ect..but calling proponents "believers" or "footers" is taboo?

I'm asking out of curiosity, not to start an argument. Note too that I'm far from insulted when called a denialist or scofftic - I think it's humorous that the people who call me those think I care in the first place.

[Guest Spazmo]

I'm just curious. Why can people go around calling people denialist, scofftic ect..but calling proponents "believers" or "footers" is taboo?

I don't think the terms "believers" or "'footers" are taboo, at least not the way I read the rules. Some folks don't like the word " 'footers", but in my opinion it applies to everyone who participates in these discussions.

I think a word that might get more negative attention is "romantics", but I also feel that this term applies to some. But since it is generally used as a put-down, I don't use it in reference to any particular person. I only use it to occasionally describe a group of anonymous people.

As far as the terms "denialist" and "scoftic" are concerned, I also don't use them because doing so is almost always inflammatory. But just like "romantics", I feel that there are some times when these terms apply, even though I don't use them.

Most of the terms described in your post are not what I would call respectful, especially when directed at a specific person.

[Guest]

Ultimately, I want the mystery solved, and the BF species documented for the sake of truth. On a more personal level, frankly I want to see the "scientific establishment" get a well-deserved poke in the eye. "Scientists" (as a group) are in my experience some of the most arrogant and self-righteous jerks on the planet, presuming to set themselves up as judge and jury of what is and what isn't.

Knocks against the scientific community because no evidence has been produced doesn't make sense to me. Note that some members on this site are indeed scientists. As such we won't tolerate this kind of talk. Maintain respect for the other members on this board.

I want to discover what is making people think they saw a living Bigfoot.

I want to know if it is related to a sleep disorder, prescription drugs, being prone to belief, being tired, or whatever. I just want to figure out the real cause of a Bigfoot sighting.

Here you call into question what others are seeing. Including members of this forum. If I had seen a sasquatch I've got to tell you I'd be pretty steamed right now. To suggest that there would have to be something "wrong" with someone that sees a sasquatch is poor form. I encourage you to watch what you post. Remember, this isn't the "anti-BFF" so this kind of talk can go somewhere else. Use respect when addressing other members here. This post didn't show any respect.

[Guest]

Most of the terms described in your post are not what I would call respectful, especially when directed at a specific person.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, calling it a chicken won't make it any less of a waterfowl...

I feel no particular impulse to pull my punches when confronted by intellectually dishonest, arrogant psuedo-"skeptics".

Respect in this case is earned, not given.

[masterbarber]

No, Spaz's is right on. You like to use those cute little names like a battering ram against folks who don't agree with you. Quite frankly, I think it's beneath you but don't stop on my account.

[Guest]

Knocks against the scientific community because no evidence has been produced doesn't make sense to me.

And there YOU go. There is PLENTY of evidence, but that camp refuses to even admit it, let alone examine it in any objective manner. Does that evidence rise to the level of conclusive PROOF? Maybe not. But it is not intellectually honest to state that there is "no evidence produced".

Note that some members on this site are indeed scientists. As such we won't tolerate this kind of talk. Maintain respect for the other members on this board.

With all due respect, Colossus, they don't ACT like scientists. Not REAL ones who are objective and intellectually honest.

[Guest Lesmore]

And there YOU go. There is PLENTY of evidence, but that camp refuses to even admit it, let alone examine it in any objective manner. Does that evidence rise to the level of conclusive PROOF? Maybe not. But it is not intellectually honest to state that there is "no evidence produced".

With all due respect, Colossus, they don't ACT like scientists. Not REAL ones who are objective and intellectually honest.

You say REAL scientists are objective and have intellectual honesty.

How do... you.... determine objectivity and intellectual honesty ?

[Guest]

You (Mulder) like to use those cute little names like a battering ram against folks who don't agree with you. Quite frankly, I think it's beneath you but don't stop on my account.

Even if it's not beneath him, it's at a minimum ineffective. I don't think any skepic here minds to be called such names considering they are being called them because of an emotional outburst. The names come from a place that's the opposite of what many believers claim to adhere to - objectivity. Recognizing this, I think most skeptics view those labels as a smoke screen used by the believer when all other arguments have failed, rather than as any kind of battering ram.

Anyway, back to the topic. I think for me the thought of a real, live, flesh and blood Bigfoot would be astounding and endlessly fascinating. For me, two things would instantly come to mind if one were to find and provce Bigfoot.

1. Wow! They were long rumored to be real, but incredibly eluded us a very long time.

2. Wow. What else don't we know about? If a BF can exist in North America, what's out there in the uncharted jungles?

[Drew]

Here you call into question what others are seeing. Including members of this forum. If I had seen a sasquatch I've got to tell you I'd be pretty steamed right now. To suggest that there would have to be something "wrong" with someone that sees a sasquatch is poor form. I encourage you to watch what you post. Remember, this isn't the "anti-BFF" so this kind of talk can go somewhere else. Use respect when addressing other members here. This post didn't show any respect.

Why would you be steamed if you had seen a sasquatch? Just as someone here might be able to someday prove that a Bigfoot animal exists, I would bet that there is a far better chance of Bigfoot sightings being attributed to one of the possibilities I listed above. They are all, after all, real, existing things, which have been known to cause things such as: Hallucinations, Cataplectic collapses, and depression.

The forum is here to discuss Bigfoot. I believe Bigfoot can be explained through physiological or neurological reasons.

There is nothing disrespectful in the post. It is a direct answer to the thread's opening question.

Should the forum's message be changed to "Still the web's most popular one-stop shop for Sasquatch talk, (as long as you don't think Sasquatch sightings are actually Physiologically, or Neurologically explained)"?

[Guest]

There's no gray area in a closed mind.

[Guest]

Drew, how would your theory account for the large number of sightings when more than one person sees the same clearly defined creature? I don't think mass hysteria is a viable conclusion, but I could be wrong.

[Drew]

Drew, how would your theory account for the large number of sightings when more than one person sees the same clearly defined creature? I don't think mass hysteria is a viable conclusion, but I could be wrong.

I would like to see some of the LARGE NUMBER of sightings involving more than one person.

Some, like the Memorial day footage, I would attribute to a hoax.

Others, it may be a case of one person saying they saw it, and the others agreeing that they saw it too.

For example, you pay for a Bigfoot expedition, the leader of the expedition points to something moving in the dark, and says "Oh my god did you see that?", and some of the people say 'YEAH!!', when they probably really didn't see anything that would be an actual Bigfoot.

In some places, the Bigfoot folk tale has become engrained in the history of the area, similar to Snipe hunting, or Santa Claus. I can remember me and my cousins agreeing that we all saw Santa's sleigh in the night sky on Christmas Eve.

But, I'd like to see the group sightings you are referencing.

[Guest]

Back on topic I think finding Bigfoot would be the biggest discovery of this young century, and yea I wouldn't mind being the guy who made it. Now that would be something for the future grandkids to talk about at school! ;-)

[Guest]

I didn't say group sightings Drew, I said more than one person. I know you've read several sightings on various websights where a couple of people have seen the same thing, say from a vehicle or similar incident. I too question the validity of the memorial day footage. I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you by my question, I genuinely would like to know your thoughts on it.

[Guest gershake]

I want bigfoot to be found because I want to learn more about the species. They are surely very peculiar.