"bigfoot On The Brain"

[LeafTalker]

I said, "I think what is being exaggerated here is the 'danger' of a misidentification. There is no danger involved."

 

Trogluddite said,  

In some cases, there isn't any danger.  In many cases in which there is no visual sighting, there is a substantial danger of miss-identification.  For example, hearing a tree falling in the woods somewhere in the distant dark woods, then declaring that to be unequivocally a Bigfoot, is a sample of BOTB (syndrome). 

 

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, no danger will result from a misidentification. 

 

No buildings will fall down, no nuclear plants will blow up, if I walk in the woods and hear a bird chrip and say, "That's a BF." And yet we somehow feel the need to slap a label on people who are learning, in an attempt to embarrass them for identification "mistakes", as if something were at stake, when nothing is.

 

I wonder why it's so important to us to embarrass people for no reason?

Edited July 19, 2015 by LeafTalker

[ShadowBorn]

 People want to define themselves like that understanding their written words live far beyond this present day go for it.

Gumshoeye

 

Unfortunately in this digital age written words will go on forever as long they are on hard drives . So are you concern about this since the author of this thread decided to call this a syndrome? Which clearly says that syndrome is " a group of symptoms that consistently occur together or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms."  So your concern is what about this ?

 

I have no concern since I do not have a "syndrome" so I cannot even relate to this at all. But can relate to the effects of BOTB and that I can assure is not a illness nor syndrome. You have said it your self that it is not by stating that it is not referenced in any medical journal. So this just make this a mental state that all who has explored or ventured into this type of research . Exploring the idea that there is a giant entity roaming our forest. That they can become overwhelmed and over excited  that every sound or event is bigfoot with out further investigating. 

[Trogluddite]

I said, "I think what is being exaggerated here is the 'danger' of a misidentification. There is no danger involved."

 

Trogluddite said,  

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, no danger will result from a misidentification. 

 

No buildings will fall down, no nuclear plants will blow up, if I walk in the woods and hear a bird chrip and say, "That's a BF." And yet we somehow feel the need to slap a label on people who are learning, in an attempt to embarrass them for identification "mistakes", as if something were at stake, when nothing is.

 

I wonder why it's so important to us to embarrass people for no reason?

LT,

 

If you feel that my post or anything in this thread is an attempt to embarrass anyone, that's unfortunate, but there was no intent to do so.  The whole point of the original post, as I understood it, was simply to remind people not to jump to conclusions about things that happen while they are investigating.  That should be no more remarkable than telling someone to read the questions carefully on a test.  No one was slapping a label on anyone except people who are objecting to the original post, who appear to want to label the OP and those who have calmly tried explain the OP as big green meanies or something. 

 

Not sure at all where "embarrassment" comes into the discussion.  

[chelefoot]

I don't see what the argument is... can't we all admit that there are people out in the field that no matter what they see hear, they automatically (often incorrectly) label it a Bigfoot phenomenon?  They have become so wrapped up in Bigfoot that they have lost their objectivity.  (And I think this can happen to denialists - those who will not under no circumstances consider anything to be caused by a BF).  If everyone can't admit that these people exist, well, I don't know what to say. They have blinders on.

[LeafTalker]

LT,

 

If you feel that my post or anything in this thread is an attempt to embarrass anyone, that's unfortunate, but there was no intent to do so.  The whole point of the original post, as I understood it, was simply to remind people not to jump to conclusions about things that happen while they are investigating.  That should be no more remarkable than telling someone to read the questions carefully on a test.  No one was slapping a label on anyone except people who are objecting to the original post, who appear to want to label the OP and those who have calmly tried explain the OP as big green meanies or something. 

 

Not sure at all where "embarrassment" comes into the discussion.  

 

No, I don’t think you specifically were trying to embarrass anybody.

 

However, the “name†for this “syndrome†is not meant to be flattering, is it? “Bigfoot on the Brain� Do you think that somebody seeing that phrase for the first time would say, “Oh, a person with ‘BOTB’ must be an astute observer of nature; someone with a deep interest in what goes on around them�

 

No. You would say, “Oh, I get it. A person with ‘BOTB’ is a deluded buffoon. Someone to laugh at. Someone to not take seriously.â€

 

It’s a sneering way to refer to the behavior of other people.

 

And I’m not sure why anybody would want to refer to anyone else interested in BF in a sneering way.

 

Hasn’t everyone here had enough of sneering? Why would anybody want to INTENSIFY the sneering by inventing NEW ways to sneer at each other?

 

The OP, who I have agreed with in the past, talks about this idea in very dramatic terms: “[bigfoot on the Brain] is not rationalâ€â€¦he “fears†it’s very common… he continually “fights†it in himself. 

 

Wow! A lot of energy being spent on a non-problem, and in such a way as to make people doubt themselves and fear even MORE ridicule (as if such a thing were possible) than they already do when they talk about their experiences or express an interest in this topic.

 

It’s simple, really. We’re supposed to display some charity, not rip on people for, um, nothing of any importance whatsoever. 

 

 

If everyone can't admit that these people exist, well, I don't know what to say. They have blinders on.

"These people"? That's kind of what I'm talking about. 

 

And I know you didn't intend to sound the way you did. But that's exactly the point. Even well-meaning people need to think about how they're expressing themselves, to make sure they're not sounding contemptuous, even if they think there's no way they could be doing that. (There is, unfortunately, a way they could be doing that.)

Edited July 19, 2015 by LeafTalker

[southernyahoo]

This thread is centered on interpretation of findings or events attributed to BF. I think confusion and disagreements about those things arise due to taking these things out of context and measuring them against some hypothetical standard of proof, It should be considered that without the context and experiencing events In situ there will always be questionable interpretations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ

 

In archaeology, in situ refers to an artifact that has not been moved from its original place of deposition. In other words, it is stationary, meaning "still." An artifact being in situ is critical to the interpretation of that artifact and, consequently, of the culture which formed it. Once an artifact's 'find-site' has been recorded, the artifact can then be moved for conservation, further interpretation and display. An artifact that is not discovered in situ is considered out of context and as not providing an accurate picture of the associated culture.

 

 

I'm just saying this is a factor in interpretation that is ignored conveniently by critics. 

[Guest DWA]

The problem in bigfootery is clearly the mainstream's:  Bigfoot Forcibly Evicted From Brain, Then Brain Eyes and Ears Plugged (BFEFBTBEEP)

[MIB]

Bigfoot on the brain ... real enough.  

 

The scoftics and denialists will try to twist it around to use it as basis for dismissal when in fact, it is a form of validation.  

 

You want syndrome?  You want medical diagnosis?  Look up PTSD, look up hyper-vigilance.  If you REALLY want to know about bigfoot on the brain, learn about unresolved psychological trauma.   Bigfoot on the brain is like hearing a noise downstairs 2 nights after you were just subjected to a home invasion robbery.   Bloody well right you better check and take it seriously.  

 

People who've been there KNOW.   People who haven't can't.   You're comparing one person's proven fact / personal history to another's whimsical idea about what can't be and expecting them to be treated with equal seriousness.   It adds insult to injury.

 

People who haven't had a face to face encounter have no business in this discussion, they are not qualified.

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

And ^^^that.

 

And as witness, all you scoffers that can't be bothered to read, all the bona fide scoftics that had an encounter...and have now closed off things that were central to the way they lived, all because they experienced something they knew wasn't real...and can't ever ever ever have something like that happen...ever again.

 

That's what denial can do to your life.  I'd keep that open mind.

Edited July 20, 2015 by DWA

[gigantor]

I disagree that you need a face-to-face encounter in order to understand BFOTB.

 

I haven't and certainly understand and even experienced BFOTB for a short amount of time.

[Guest DWA]

^^^I think that MIB might be talking about the tendency to dismiss sasquatch based on this, which is certainly something that cannot be done.

[Terry]

For me it's not so much the animal that's hard to believe.  It's the people who make unbelievable claims!

 

t.

[Guest DWA]

Anything that isn't cross corroborated by that normal curve so neatly formed by the evidence, I dismiss.

[chelefoot]

I hear about it all the time:

Someone goes out in the woods. They hear a tree limb fall, they feel pine cones falling, the apple they put out moved... they hear an owl.  They tell others a BF broke a limb, tossed pine cones at them, moved the apple and mimicked an owl.

 

Now I might be wrong.... but I think confirmation bias to hard at work here. These mundane things can all be explained in nature, but the person with BOTB will become irate if you suggest reasonable causes for their "encounters".

 

It's happens constantly in this field.

[Guest DWA]

As I said:  if it can be otherwise explained and that explanation doesn't appear equally farfetched, if not more:  I'm not thinking bigfoot, any more than I would wolverine or cougar.

 

Which is, of course, irrelevant.  The evidence says what it very clearly does; and if one cannot contest the scientific proponents, one really is wasting one's time raising things like this.

 

(No.  There is no BOTB anywhere in the evidence I consider "live.")

Edited July 21, 2015 by DWA