Why Would Proponents Waste Their Time Believing?

[Guest Crowlogic]

the news loves an obvious fake. it helps bolster the tongue and cheek treatment they usually give all things BF.

 

people that have nothing to gain could be anyone outside of BFery with no TV show to promote and a reputation to lose.

 

for example, I remember a local lady that reported seeing a BF years ago . what she saw scared her so she called the sheriffs office and gave a report to a deputy. he reported her to be a credible witness even though he could not vouch for what she saw.

 

anyways, local gossipers made great fun of it and the family got everything from prank calls to threats so eventually she retracted her statement and let it all blow over.

 

i'd wager anyone that witnessed that ( or similar elsewhere) would think twice before subjecting themselves to that  sort of attention.... I know I would.

This implies that the media would rather present fakes than potential genuine cases.  Any case that surfaces and has enough of a legitimate presentation is as desirable as the obvious fun fake is.  What won't work in the news media is slow moving documentary style evidence that is more information rich than visual and story rich. However if such a case were available and if it was suitably credible a feature series can is then possible where the evidence is examined start to finish.  I don't know if there is anything that might fit this though.  

[Doc Holliday]

the fun fake is easy pickings for a quick feel good laugh.

 

following up on an info rich and thought provoking  report requires more effort but  without solid proof the general public treats it much the same.

 

knowing this is why, imo, the more serious reports never see the light of day. individuals know better and keep quiet.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Doc Holliday

[chelefoot]

Crow, I agree with much of what you say. I find myself being more and more skeptical of all things BF lately. However, I don't except that every single sighting report is mis-id, delusions, lies, etc..etc... I can't explain the clear day time sightings and neither can you.

[MarkGlasgow]

The bottom line is that much of the BF 'scene' stinks to high heaven. All but the most deluded of footers accept this.

As Chele points out above we can only agree with with many of the points you make about the subject being exploited by charlatans. However the more subjective of us can cut through the BS and hone in what really matters.

Focus on the big 'events' if you like crow. These may help soothe your soul on this subject.

I, and many like me will be focusing our energies on encounters and research which won't be tainted by media hungry attention seekers.

Your stance really confuses me crow. You previously proclaimed BF to be reality, but puzzlingly believe they became extinct very recently. Your posts on this thread do not seem to reflect this belief whatsoever.

What gives?

Edited May 31, 2015 by MarkGlasgow

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Crow focuses mainly on hoaxes, so that's what he/she is going to see. We all know there's a lot of hoaxes, so there's no reason to mention things like the Rick Dyer stuff if you're searching for answers. It's true that the Bigfoot phenomenon is complex, but if you're trying to find the truth, it helps if you focus on things that might show that your current belief is wrong. The problem with the belief that a cryptid doesn't exist is that you won't ever be able to figure out that it's the case. For example, I believe that unicorns probably don't exist, but I'm not going to spend my life trying to find things that support that particular belief because that would be a waste of time. The only truly productive way to approach this is to search (with skepticism) for things that might show that they exist.

[Guest Crowlogic]

n

Crow, I agree with much of what you say. I find myself being more and more skeptical of all things BF lately. However, I don't except that every single sighting report is mis-id, delusions, lies, etc..etc... I can't explain the clear day time sightings and neither can you.

Indeed the clear daytime sighting is a reason to ponder the positive reality of true.  But we find ourselves at the mercy of reportage unless there is a solid photo ore video to accompany the clear daylight sighting.  Failing that reportage is only as good as the reporter.  I have weaned myself away from reportage.  Of course if someone is that familiar and astute enough where they can say to go to such and such a place at such and such a time and you'll see one well that's different but so far never works out.

[Doc Holliday]

assuming all sightings are reported and  I know of a few that were not .....at least not publicly.

 

I suspect that's usually the way it is.

 

not everybody seeks the  attention, sometimes they just want  answers and no fan fare.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow focuses mainly on hoaxes, so that's what he/she is going to see. We all know there's a lot of hoaxes, so there's no reason to mention things like the Rick Dyer stuff if you're searching for answers. It's true that the Bigfoot phenomenon is complex, but if you're trying to find the truth, it helps if you focus on things that might show that your current belief is wrong. The problem with the belief that a cryptid doesn't exist is that you won't ever be able to figure out that it's the case. For example, I believe that unicorns probably don't exist, but I'm not going to spend my life trying to find things that support that particular belief because that would be a waste of time. The only truly productive way to approach this is to search (with skepticism) for things that might show that they exist.

My journey away from belief has been a long one and I make no secret that once I applied the same set of reasonings as to why we couldn't prove bigfoot exists.  I was and am deeply impressed with Bill Munn's work and Bill has done the best assessment of the PGF ever attempted.  The PGF stands alone but it also stands lonely in having nothing to match it.  So I realized at some point that we've been at the bigfoot game for a long time since the Patterson film and a lot has come and gone since.  As a person who understands technology and embraces a great deal of technology I took a very keen interest when reports of tissue and DNA testing began circulating.  I considered that at last things had come of age to study this thing.  I spent around three years keeping tabs on the hot prospects especially the Ketchum study.  As a person who is no stranger to laboratory procedure and analysis the issue seemed very straight forward.  That is to say if you are sampling cat DNA you are not going to come up with hampster hybrid raccoon cat DNA if you are attempting to understand the nature of cat DNA.  When the back peddling, infighting and ultimately the peer review publishing issues surfaced I knew the game was up.  When Justin the shooter was making statements denouncing his associations with Ketchum I realized it was bigfoot business as usual.  At the end of the day nobody knew up from down and sadly nobody ever really does.  So DNA wasn't going to happen and the rarity of tissue collecting would make it seem as if years might pass before more was collected.  Ues I had reservations about Ketchum as she was not only a believer but a repeat knower in contact with bigfoot.  Major red flag and the end result was not a surprise.  Also Erickson seemed washed up and looked pretty disgusted by the way it had turned out.  I didn't need the Georgia hoax to tip the balance and it didn't because they were clowns.  It was Todd Standing that sealed it for me.  There was the intense loaner meticulously  filming his creatures and humbly telling reporters he was trying to save the species and all this selfless stuff.  But at the end of the day he was every bit the huckster as the Georgia clowns.  So I stepped back drew a breath and surveyed the scene and somewhere in my core of knowing I knew it was all hollow.  The curious thing is that once I knew it was hollow the blinders came off, the excuses became excuses and the workings of the bigfoot myth were fully understood.  I think if a person was to say to a friend or spouse that they were going to wait 50 years before denouncing belief in something nobody could criticize that person of making a rash or snap judgment.  No matter how you look at it 50 years is a very long time to wander within the shadow of the doubt. b Feels great being out from under the shadow too.

[Guest Divergent1]

Why would proponents waste their time believing?

 

1. They saw bigfoot first hand.

2. I believe most bigfoot enthusiasts have a type of mind set that allows them to consider the impossible as possible.

3. The primitive hairy man is an archetype that resides in our collective unconscious according to Carl Jung. We project onto bigfoot what we believe bigfoot ought to be and that serves it's purpose in reaffirming our worldview. It has nothing to do with what the creature actually might be if it exists.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest DWA]

But the 'Footers in the 'Burbs will tell you they're real -- the seen 'em.

 

And I take, what, you over them?  Evidence indicates a big "no" to that one.

 

You can't throw that baby out with the bathwater because you don't agree with the Location.

 

I can throw out any babies that don't scan when the huge congruency represented by the rest of the babies is taken into account.  Watch me, world.  Hawks on Mars?  Toss.  That's science.

 

That there's an encounter report. It should not be questioned.

 

DWA says people don't make reports up, so Bigfoot MUST exist regardless where the reports come from.

 

Wow.  You must be an easy guy to fool.  Or you must not be reading what I write.  If you have *no reason to believe* a person is mistaken, it's plainly irrational to assume they are.  You wouldn't be alive right now if you  believed otherwise.  Think about it.

 

If I told you I had a sighting at 100 feet in Oakville would my sighting be dismissed because of the location or my character?

 

Oh, with *you*?  Character.  OK, lack of acquaintance with subject matter, plus character.

 

If ole Rog got a pass on his character then Squatchy gets the same.

 

No you don't.  See how science works?  Patterson, plainly yes, because what's on his film is not explainable by anything he had the capability to do or arrange.  You, plainly no, because your motives shine through every post here.  Unless you have, you know, a film we can't explain.  See how science works?

 

But I didn't see a Bigfoot. No one has. Ridiculous when you consider the alternatives.

 

Actually, statements like this are ridiculous when you consider the, you know, evidence.  To which you've been pointed.  You're falling behind further every day here, Squatchy.  How's Rugman?

[salubrious]

For the national media to pick up on a bigfoot event it has to be something of a big event yes.  It is the big events that spread the word and it was the big events that launched the bigfoot culture as it exists now.  For instance I'm not one to pay attention to the weather in Texas but holy cow Texas is all over the news with it's flooding.  The flooding is a big event.  If it was just normal thunderstorms nobody would be on it.  Now Texas has floods and it'll get people's attention whereas the church picnic in Austin getting rained out two weeks ago isn't going to matter to anyone except in the congregation.  That's the way bigfoot news is.  If it's big and sensational it can get coverage.  If it's small it'll be in the community an perhaps a topic at a conference.

 

Just so we are clear here, if I can boil this down:

its not evidence unless its a big event.

 

Do I have that right?

[Guest DWA]

^^^^I think we have observed enough to say:  yes.  "Big Events" seem to be all Crow focuses on.  "Big Events" are, virtually guaranteed, things to ignore.

[Yuchi1]

Sorry, I disagree again. There was no possibility that Hank was real. Yet Media was all over it. They knew he was a hoaxer, but they covered it anyway. I believe they did it to make all of bigfooting look bad. Standing... another example.  Just look at the Muppetheads and tell me they thought there was a chance it was real. They KNEW it wasn't. But it was all over the media.

 

The stuff Media has picked up lately has had ZERO chance of being real.... and they knew it. You give them more credit than they deserve. I find it interesting that you believe the Media thinks those stories had a chance of being real, when very few in the BF community gave it a chance. I think... or I know they didn't think those strories were real. But, they covered them. I knew there would be a follow up story saying... it was fake. Another BF story... HOAX.

 

Why don't they cover interesting stories by people with nothing to gain and everything to lose, that has no other possible explanation.... can't be proven a hoax, and upon careful review, can't be rules a hoax? I think I know why. Do you?

Commercial news outlets are not in the business of reporting verifiable facts or speaking truthfully, (i.e., Brian Williams, George Stephanopoulos, et. al.) rather, in the business of selling (ads) air time as that is what keeps the network in operation. The more sensational, graphic, outrageous, the better, for (their) business.

[chelefoot]

I agree. What I did not agree with was Crows statement that it takes quality content to make a big news event.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Just so we are clear here, if I can boil this down:

its not evidence unless its a big event.

 

Do I have that right?

Wrong.  Evidence that is substantial in appearance and content is what will find it's way into the media's line of sight.  The endless circumstantial evidence of the single track or distant sighting long ago stopped bearing weight.  The only place the mundane circumstantial evidence is counted is in the bigfoot proponent camp.

I agree. What I did not agree with was Crows statement that it takes quality content to make a big news event.

I suppose content of poor quality what the media will invest in?  All of the hoaxes start out good and good looking.  What crummy evidence real or fake have made it to the general public via the media or even the bigfoot world?