My Name Is.... And I'm A Bigfoot Junkie

[Guest]

IMO if bigfoot area a real population of creatures, they exhibit a wide range of individual behaviour. Therefore the skeptic idea that some of these behaviours are ridiculous in and of themselves seems to be an attempt to divide, conquer and throw out the anecdotal reports that they don't like, i.e. those that don't support the theory that all BF are mis IDed bears or subconscious projections. 

 

Real animals are at times curious, opportunistic, playful and just plain random. For instance I can say my cat "normally" won't go on the kitchen counter, he's not allowed, but I will not leave a turkey sitting there unattended for long... he'll likely succumb to the temptation, take the opportunity, despite the "danger" of discovery, and he's fed well.

 

Now the ape tribe in particular, are nature's clowns and nature's mimics, we would not have the verb "to ape" if that were not the case. It is more often seen in zoo animals but there are reports of apes and mere monkeys in contact with human population doing things like snatching cigarette butts off the ground and smoking them and begging for cigarettes. Knowing that this is something that this branch of the mammalian family tree WILL do, it cannot be seen as particularly ridiculous if observed in another twig of that branch.

 

Likewise, apple stealing, hog tossing, wood ninja behavior, dumpster diving, are all things we might expect from other REAL animals, so the notion of them being ridiculous in another is irrational.

 

Now here's where we have a problem with black and white thinking, no Virginia, not ALL BF smoke, not ALL BF go on backyard apple raids, not ALL BF go dumpster diving... etc.... I can't believe I have to do that, but here you can make a statement of the form "Humans sometimes go fishing" and get the challenge "So you're not human if you don't go fishing?"

 

I find the general "skeptic" idea of a BF stranger than a UFO riding, phase shifting, one with laser beam eyes, because it's not allowed to eat, it's not allowed to drink, it's not allowed to poop, it's not allowed to sleep. Now THAT truly is ridiculous.

[Guest]

That's the problem

Who's in charge of saying what's too crazy in Bigfoot world?

Edited October 5, 2013 by mbh

[Wheellug]

My Name is Wheellug (Rick) and I'm a bigfoot Junkie. 

 

What brought me here was an interest in the subject.  

 

I've stayed with this forum as it allows great conversation.  

 

Those that have seen, believers, want to be's, idealist, skeptics and of course, scoftics.

 

When I saw the PGF as a child, I knew.  

 

Then a personal experience as a young teen.  I can't say I saw one, but I know I was frightened so bad that I could not move. 

 

I don't believe that at this point there is a straw that will break the camels back at this point, for me that is. 

[chelefoot]

Well, of all the posts I have read so far, the only one that mentioned "Finding Bigfoot" is a skeptic!! That kinda surprises me. I assumed that many our of newer BF junkies were a result of the FB show.

[WV FOOTER]

OK, I admit it, I'm here for the Money.

[chelefoot]

Sorry WVF, I'm calling ...um, er, .... I don't believe that one.

[chelefoot]

Bigfoot trivia of the day:

Are you guys aware of the fact that the term "Scoftic" originated right here of the BFF?

[Sasfooty]

I wasn't aware of that, but it certainly makes sense. They tend to crowd in here like buzzards on fresh roadkill.

 

"Skeptic" just never properly defined them.....

Edited October 7, 2013 by Sasfooty

[chelefoot]

I had originally read it on Bipto's Blog(who, by the way, for those who don't know - was the founder of the BFF) But I can't find the specific article this morning. But here's this:

"Sometime before the fall of 2003, Roger Knights, a frequent comment maker on all matters Bigfoot, decided to coin a word that he felt would be a counter to words like “pseudoscience.” According to his own accounting, Knights first used “scoftic” on the Bigfoot Forums on September 13, 2003. No, it was not a Friday, but the date in the old Roman festival calendar is epulum Iovis (“banquet of Jupiter”), on the Ides, during the Ludi Romani. Perhaps Knights should have been beware of the Ides of September, for his term itself has been debated almost as much as what he wished to point out by inventing it."

From: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/scoftic/

I should also add that due to it's negative connotation, calling someone specific a "scoftic" here on the BFF is now considered name-calling. Knight goes on to say:

"By “scoftic” someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificant. Scofticism is thus fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness. The reasonable pose is “show me the evidence.” The “fine print” is all the qualifiers, and all the hidden assumptions and misdirections.

A nutshell definition of scofticism would be “scientism in disguise,” although that’s not quite accurate….Another thumbnail definition is “a cranky skeptic.”

[WSA]

I prefer "hyper-empiricism." To me, this describes the approach of discounting most any experience  not had by the person asked to evaluate it. More often than not, this person believes only the corpus of the animal will satisfy their requirements.(BTW, I think this would be an optimistic prediction. I would predict we will still see a faction who wouldn't accept a specimen as legitimate unless they put their hand in the wound, so to speak. There seems to be a level of denial that goes that deep)

 

Not that I would use that to describe anyone here, mind ya.  :-)

That's the problem

Who's in charge of saying what's too crazy in Bigfoot world?

Great question MBH. Although this probably a rhetorical query, let me take a stab: Bigfoots themselves. Which is the easy part of the answer.

[Guest LarryP]

I think that maybe Bigfoot is going extinct if it is not already. If it wasn't for that pgf I'd toss Bigfoot in the bin with alien abductions and ghosts.

 

Harvard tried to toss Dr. John E. Mack and alien abductions "in the bin".

 

But it didn't work.

[Guest DWA]

I prefer "hyper-empiricism." To me, this describes the approach of discounting most any experience  not had by the person asked to evaluate it. More often than not, this person believes only the corpus of the animal will satisfy their requirements.(BTW, I think this would be an optimistic prediction. I would predict we will still see a faction who wouldn't accept a specimen as legitimate unless they put their hand in the wound, so to speak. There seems to be a level of denial that goes that deep)

 

Not that I would use that to describe anyone here, mind ya.  :-)

One problem with this topic is that, because of ...I can definitely go with hyper-empiricism...people don't understand that being a sasquatch proponent is actually the reasonable stance on this question.

 

This comes of not having truly assessed the evidence except through the blinding screen of one's h-e syndrome (the ol' prefacing every sentence with "since Bigfoot can't possibly be real...")

 

A purely objective assessment of the evidence leads one to the conclusion that full-time scientific attention is clearly warranted.  I am still waiting for the first person who disagrees who has done a properly objective assessment of the question.  So far it's all h-e syndrome.

[Guest LarryP]

I prefer "hyper-empiricism." To me, this describes the approach of discounting most any experience  not had by the person asked to evaluate it. More often than not, this person believes only the corpus of the animal will satisfy their requirements.(BTW, I think this would be an optimistic prediction. I would predict we will still see a faction who wouldn't accept a specimen as legitimate unless they put their hand in the wound, so to speak. There seems to be a level of denial that goes that deep)

 

 

 

“That is at bottom the only courage that is demanded of us: to have courage for the most strange, the most singular and the most inexplicable that we may encounter. That mankind has in this sense been cowardly has done life endless harm; the experiences that are called ‘visions,’ the whole so-called ‘spirit-world,’ death, all those things that are so closely akin to us, have by daily parrying been so crowded out of life that the senses with which we could have grasped them are atrophied."

 

- R.M.Rilke (Letters to a Young Poet)

 

.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^And once again the poet nails it.

[Hammer102492]

Similar to the request for Sheri's story (which I've read--thank you Sheri!), have you posted a report or shared your experiences somewhere on this site? If so, point me in the right direction!

 Under Sightings > Midwest > Ohio.  Also posted under Habituation.  Found that discussion very helpful.  Thanks for asking