Roots Of Denial

[roguefooter]

This sounds like an affirmation thread for Bigfoot Anonymous.

 

It's boiled down to denial is bad, affirmation is good.

 

If Crow comes in and tells you "how wrong we are", that's bad.

 

Telling Crow however "it's about you being wrong"...well that's good.

 

Hi my name is (            ) and I'm a Bigfoot believer..

Edited March 6, 2015 by roguefooter

[Yuchi1]

No red meat in 10 years?  Therein lies the problem. 

[BobbyO]

You don't understand walking away.  I haven't eaten red meat in 10 years but I still go to restaurants where red meat is served. I order other things when there.  My interest in this field pertains now to the mechanics of why the field exists for the believers when there is no solid core to the matter and when the gloss is essentially entertainment.

Ah wonderful.

Another one who will have absolutely zero positive input into the actual subject of the forum and is only interested in the members of it and why they think what they do.

Yet of course we are the ones who "don't understand" x and y.

[Yuchi1]

In deference to CrowLogic's lamentations, looking at the history since the P/G film, it has basically been one disappointment after another with the litany of false discoveries, misidentification of evidence and outright hoaxes, et. al.. Then, you have the crop of people seeking to make money off the endeavour with the usual MO of "mining the miners" and even the most stalwart of Pilgrims begin to lose faith after repetitive failures in their quest.

 

Take heart tho' friends, for the best way to find and learn of what you seek is to simply quit looking at the trees, focus on the forest and you will discover that these beings will find you as the revealment is more often than not, at their discretion, not yours.

[WSA]

Crow....if you consider this to be a cult, you may have invested to an unhealthy level. A little balance might be in order instead. Maybe stop somewhere between the two poles? And 50 years? Many other things have taken far longer. Our puny lifespans are no valid measure of most things....here is just one more.

[BigTreeWalker]

From my experience in working with people, most city dwellers are indifferent to the subject of sasquatch. They may have an opinion of belief based on tabloids, Finding Bigfoot, YouTube, or the news media. Or they may have an opinion of disbelief based on the same things. But, they are indifferent because making a living, knowing what your friends are doing on Facebook, or talking about on Twitter, or what the latest game scores and stats are is more important to them.

I place more importance on the experiences of outdoorsman who spend much of their time on the ground in the outdoors. Some are adamant that sasquatch doesn't exist. And I understand this because they have based their decision on a lifetime of experience, not on what someone has told them. Others either know they exist, from personal experience, or are open to the possibility because they understand that there are a lot of places where an animal like this could exist; especially in the PNW.

It's pure arrogance to believe that only someone with initials after their name can collect factual evidence. Besides, no matter how we feel about it, there are scientists in the field studying sasquatch now. We are talking about denial here. We're not talking about scientific study, because it's already happening. What we are talking about is a general consensus, a majority; where a scientist can go out in the field, get funded and not hurt their career by doing so. I agree that it will probably take a body for that to happen.

Proof?! As an example: I don't need scientific proof to know that cougars exist; though I have never seen one except in the zoo or a video. I have seen their tracks and their kills. Cougars existed long before science "proved" their existence. Science can give me information I may not be able to get myself. That is its strength: gaining knowledge and understanding. Many of the greatest discoveries were not made by scientists.

When the body does finally come in; probably the only way to gain more knowledge about sasquatch will be doing things like the habituators are doing now (God forbid!). This isn't a group of chimpanzees or gorillas we are talking about. A person will probably never be able to go out and live amongst them.

[Guest]

 

 

Responsible inquisitive scientists are not anxious to deny or ignore BF,  they just require that someone,  anyone actually produce a single scrap of solid evidence.  surely that's not to much to ask over the past 250 years -  is it?  just one single piece of evidence? 

 

and here's a hint for you.  If you have to argue and warp arguments to try and make data seem like it might be credible -  well that's a sign your data point is in fact not credible!

 

It's up to BF "researchers"  to provide the proof of existence,  and so far the whole boatload of you has produced exactly nothing.  While in the mean time,  any so called evidence produced,  has been quite easily disproven! 

 

I wanted to remain impartial in my thread but this certainly needs following up, I think. Do you really mean to say that discoveries that require scientific equipment, knowledge and backing should be done by amateurs? Poor Bigfoot researchers try their best but, with the best will in the world, the majority don't have the training of someone like you! I don't see why the burden of proof rests on amateurs; particularly in terms of something so elusive. If nobody is looking for evidence (barring a few enthusiasts) then why on earth should it be found? It's as though biologists expect Bigfoots to fling their dead relatives' corpses into populated areas- preferably not too far from the lab!- for study. 

 

Furthermore, if you are a scientist, I'm not certain you understand the difference between the words "proof" and "evidence". We don't have proof, but we do have evidence. Proof is evidence that can't be refuted; you seem to be confusing that with your phrase "solid evidence". Footprint casts, eyewitness statements, photographs and video all constitute evidence. The BFRO database is approaching 50,000 witness statments, and they do a relatively good job of ranking and verifying claims, despite the disadvantage of not being scientists.

 

A lot of this evidence is anecdotal, yes. However, the definition of "anecdotal evidence" is, to quote one dictionary, "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"

 

If science refuses to get involved, leaving it to amateurs, then ALL evidence can only be anecdotal. It's a Catch 22 situation.

 

Really, I'm not sure I approve of a scientist telling amateurs to go out and try to stumble across something. Good grief. If Bigfoots exist, then they are good at hiding. So good that amateurs don't have much of a hope. This attitude of yours is precisely the reason I think Bigfoots might exist- science is happy to dismiss the idea, despite the fact that- barring a few brave individuals- they will make NO effort to explain their conclusion. Reaching down from an ivory tower to run a few hairs through a machine once in a few years does not constitute putting in the kind of effort it would take to prove the existence of such an elusive species.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Let's be clear I said some of the reactions of bigfoot proponents are borderline cultist not cultist.  Scientology is a cult.  Cults have a formal base.

 

In any event most of the responses to my posts have done little more than rehash the tired old arguments of why bigfoot can exist.  I never say bigfoot can't exist in theory at least.  I have said  that given the history of the phenomenon and tracing it's progressions through to the present that there is precious little to pin belief on except a certain faith that it does.  However things have changed from the golden aged where bigfoot was a remotely located beast in a remote region.  It is remote no more.  The internet and technology have seen to this.  It is the very thing that allows for a serious questioning of the issue.

 

It can't be two ways.  A proponent can't say that the internet is if full of hoaxes and hucksters only.  If it is than where is the real deal?  Is there a secret handshake that opens the door to the real research efforts.  I think not.  Case in point I know of Jeff Meldrum because of the internet.  Should he be tossed in with Tom Biscardi because he's available via the internet?  

 

We know there a lot of big wilderness, we know researchers struggle to get to the field and so on and so on.  But discovery of said beast is not solely dependent on those efforts.  Accidental discovery, trigger happy hunters, yes there are trigger happy hunters folks.  Down in Alabama on my sister's cattle ranch hunters have shot cattle being frustrated that they didn't get deer that day.  There are a lot of road crossing sightings, bigfoot crosses a lot of roads and not a single bigfoot has ever been hit by a truck or totaled a Toyota, not one!  Has anybody ever hit an owl with their car here?  Well I have.  I was driving on a back road in Bucks County PA at ten O'clock on a summer night and came around a curve and an owl was devouring a kill.  It took flight and landed in the middle of my windshield.  The following day I returned to that spot and yes I found a dead owl and the rodent it had been feasting on.  That's the way real things happen.  

 

I'm not a foreigner to the woods.  Far from it.  I grew up in the country I know county life and country folk.  But I did migrate to the city and know a bit about both ways of life.  As a city dweller I was offered the opportunity to be part of the then new environmental issue of acid lake formation in upper New York State.  I spent two long summers in the woods and forests of NYS gathering data on lake acidification.  This was in 1981-1983.  It was not uncommon to spend a week or two in the field tent living.  I was at that time open to the idea of bigfoot and while it wasn't a primary thought is wasn't totally buried either.  One thing my work took me to was water, lakes and the streams feeding them.  Now as we know one of the best ways to find wildlife is at water sources.  I sure found wildlife and the signs of wildlife.  Too many deer and deer prints to count, bear, raccoon, skunk, bobcat, dogs, humans, snakes lizards, turtles and the list goes on.  But curiously absent was you guessed it bigfoot.  Not a peep, not a print and not a sound.  Some say bigfoot is in NYS, well I'll look anyone in the eye and tell them that it wasn't there in 1983 and five will get you ten it isn't there now.

 

More recently I made the acquaintance of a fellow who is a soil scientist and his field work is in many ways executed the way my field work was.  Except his work at the time was in Humboldt County CA.  His work did take him into Six Rivers National Forest.  We often discuss the joys of field work and I did indeed ask him about bigfoot up there.  No dice was his reply nothing as empty I found NYS to be.  Maybe he was lying?  Maybe part of the bigfoot cover up machine?  I sincerely doubt it.  But I am a trained observer as is he.  My eyes and ears in the woods are as sharp as any hillbilly's.  A person such as myself does not reject something out of ignorance.  A person such as myself rejects something because they have waded through the issue and have seen the issue from both sides.  Some will say I don't know enough but let me ask then how much is a person supposed to know?  How much of nothing means something?

 

Indeed people have their sightings and I won't take that away from them.  However I once hit an owl on a dark road and later confirmed a dead owl.  Therein lie the difference between knowing and seeming to know.

[WSA]

Crowlogic....here's the thing. Your intepretation of the possibilities in the world is extremely ego-centric. I don't mean to say you have an inflated opinion of yourself, but you are typical of many of those who struggle with this, viewing it through the lens of the self.

 

When you write about how the confirmation: "Hasn't happened in 50 years..." What I read is, "Hasn't happened on MY timetable, because, after all, satisfying MY curiosity is what matters most. To me."

 

When you write things like, "Not a single bigfoot has ever been hit by a truck or totaled a Toyota, not one." What I read is (aside from the fact that you might want to, umm, look into that further):  " If it happend I would be sure to know about it." Maybe you would, but possibly you would not.

 

Consider that BF is not all about you my friend, is all.  

Edited March 6, 2015 by WSA

[Guest]

I would tentatively suggest that Bigfoot intelligence might exceed that of an owl

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crowlogic....here's the thing. Your intepretation of the possibilities in the world is extremely ego-centric. I don't mean to say you have an inflated opinion of yourself, but you are typical of many of those who struggle with this, viewing it through the lens of the self.

 

When you write about how the confirmation: "Hasn't happened in 50 years..." What I read is, "Hasn't happened on MY timetable, because, after all, satisfying MY curiosity is what matters most. To me."

 

When you write things like, "Not a single bigfoot has ever been hit by a truck or totaled a Toyota, not one." What I read is (aside from the fact that you might want to, umm, look into that further):  " If it happend I would be sure to know about it." Maybe you would, but possibly you would not.

 

Consider that BF is not all about you my friend, is all.  

Since there is no public hard scientific proof of bigfoot an egocentric view is all that is possible.  Each and every believer that does not have hard proof is an egocentric believer.  A believer can share belief with other believers but each individual failing true proof is within their own belief bubble of belief.  Had I collected that dead owl and brought it in to a a taxidermist there would be proof of a dead owl.  How it died could even have been determined.  I have to conclude that modern bigfoot proponents simply don't understand the weight of time that bears against the absence of proof.   I'm far from being a kid, my beard is gray so do the math.  i understand the weight of half a century in many ways.

I would tentatively suggest that Bigfoot intelligence might exceed that of an owl

Indeed but an owl has fantastic hearing and fantastic night vision and it can fly.  Hitting an owl with a car is most likely rarer than seeing bigfoot.  What exactly has bigfoot done that implies higher intelligence?  What does it make?  What does it communicate?  It hides well?  Try spotting a tiger in grass on the Savanna and tell me if that because of a tiger's markings that allow it to blend in with grassland that a tiger is outstandingly intelligent.  

 

You are adding special dispensation to lack of bigfoot proof where there is no proof of bigfoot intelligence.

Ah wonderful.

Another one who will have absolutely zero positive input into the actual subject of the forum and is only interested in the members of it and why they think what they do.

Yet of course we are the ones who "don't understand" x and y.

If you consider solid input as patting proponents on the back and saying great work you are not incorrect.  But  you totally discount the fact that I've had access to virtually the same information concerning bigfoot that the vast majority of proponents have.  Essentially you are telling me and any other bigfoot agnostic that it is better and more constructive to believe what amounts to she said he said in the form of oral reporting and or monstrously bad video and pictorial evidence interlaced with outright hoaxing.  Oh come on when does the party get to end?

[WSA]

Ah...I see the problem here Crowlogic. You think I am some sort of beeleever. Well, if so, let me clear that up right now. No. No I'm not. I'm a reader, an observer of nature and a listener, and I put my personal experiences on top of that pile too. Belief is for those who lack any better methods. I'm not one of those, by a long-shot.

 

In addtiion, as a 56 y.o. myself, I'm delighted to confirm for you that 50 years ain't squat. Nor is 150. It is just acute myopia to think it is. I wish for you some better perspective C.L. I think you may have way over-invested in this thing way too long, and now the backlash has to be dealt with. Well, so it goes. 50 years IS a long time if you are cattywampus on a subject. Like I said, see if you can stop somewhere between the poles this time around.  

 

Cheers to you and best wishes.

[ShadowBorn]

CrowLogic

The thing about the owl is that the owl was so intense on eating the rodent that it did not pay attention to it's surroundings.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There is Bigfoot denial, except it's not what is being suggested here and it's a rather small minority. It seems like proponents don't understand that the evidence for Bigfoot just isn't convincing for most regular people. Thoughts about why the animal hasn't been found yet are going create doubts. That to me isn't denial.

[Guest DWA]

For centuries, our European forebears cultivated the "Wildman" as a centerpiece cultural myth:  the connection to the non-human; the guardian of the woods; the champion of fertility and regeneration.

 

And mythical.

 

We brought that mentality over here; and when so much of North America reminded so many of us so much of Europe, the same assumptions about the fauna carried over too.

 

Let that become the entrenched viewpoint and the rest is much easier to understand.