Poll: How Has Your Time On The Bff Influenced Your Level Of Belief In Bf

[Branco]

One has either encountered a bigfoot or one has not.  If one has encountered a bigfoot, the belief debate is moot.  If one has not, the belief debate is everything.

 

This forum is not dominated by either proponents or skeptics.  It is dominated by believers of both camps who argue their respective belief systems.

 

But there is the occasional nugget of significant information....

It doesn't take but a few seconds in the right place at the wrong for a skeptic to convert. 

[bipedalist]

Yep, I've been in the right place at the right time and it worked for me too     I once was a skeptic believe-it-or-don't

Edited January 1, 2016 by bipedalist

[SWWASAS]

No change in my belief or lack there of. I am 99.9 % convinced Bigfoot does not exist. I enjoy the fantasy and mystery of it all. I have researched, read and spent many hours in the woods of Florida. I remain hopeful and wish I were wrong,but reality sets in and I know I am not. There is simply no hard evidence for the creatures existence . Lots of speculation, mistaken or less than truthful eyewitnesses ,foot prints that could have been faked ,hoaxers, etc. does not make the mythical beast a flesh and blood animal.

I agree with dmaker and am amazed that people actually think they do exist in the real world. I do respect their dedication.

You are amazed that witnesses actually think BF exists?    I am amazed that you and Dmaker actually could think a witness could think otherwise.   Belief has nothing to do with it for a witness.    This forum would not convince me of anything except that peoples beliefs on both sides of the issue can be extreme.  

Edited January 1, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[JDL]

I didn't believe or disbelieve in bigfoot at the time of my first encounter because I had never heard of it.  What I did see was something I couldn't put a name to, which could not possibly exist, but did.

[1980squatch]

 

I think the original post meant to say "how has the BFF influenced your confidence level that BF exists".

Yes gig, exactly. I should have avoided the loaded word "belief".

[MIB]

When I came here, there was something in the woods.

It'll still be in the woods when my time here is up.

In that sense, nothing has changed.

 

What has changed is my view of the community.   Not for the better.   The way we bicker no wonder bigfoot hides.   Nobody seems to be looking for answers, everyone is arguing dogma of one sort or another.  They exist vs they don't.   They can only exist if they are X.   This is proof.  That is garbage.  Your grandma wears combat boots.   It gets TIRING.  

 

MIB

[BigTreeWalker]

Agreed MIB.

The Internet is simply entertainment. Information may be garnered from it, be it good or bad. It's your choice there.

Evidence is not proof until a general consensus is reached. And whose to say when that will happen. (This is one area where my research associate and I part ways.) The evidence tells me there is something in the woods. Can I prove what it is? No!

[norseman]

I see the community as thus......

We are a majority of special pleaders who wring our hands and cry foul with science as a bunch of meanie heads. Going to the Bigfoot convention really slapped me in the face. We want science to proclaim Sasquatch real based on photos and track casts........

My brain is very black and white, in the sense that science has told us what they need.......and its up to us proponents to provide it. Anything short of this goal is just wasted energy. So I dont stand with the majority. i want real proof and I want to take the most direct route possible. Pro Kill.

I do get tired of debating existence with skeptics, this too is wasted energy. I would rather talk strategies with others keeping an eye on the goal.

[Guest magnum peditum]

It seemed more plausible back in the 70's when BF was gaining attention. And it's certainly a fascinating and intriguing topic. 

 

I need more explanation on why trail cameras are not taking pictures of these Animals. Technology is looking like it's catching up with the question of existence. Therefore as time moves on chances on existence seems less and less likely. No matter how clever and how elusive a creature can theoretically be, at some point one of them is going to make a mistake and walk in front of a trail cam. To me the topic of BF is simply a question about a biological flesh, fur and blood animal that is yet to be formally discovered or simply doesn't exist. Most likely animals of any type do not have impeccable elusiveness. Somewhere someplace from my line of reasoning one of them has to walk in front of a camera of some sort.  I sense if nothing credible comes up in the next decade, for me, it's looking very unlikely they exist.

 

I am intrigued but overall it's more likely not than is.

[SWWASAS]

They do make mistakes Magnum.    Some of the better and more controversial, at the same time pictures, are of juveniles.    I have one,  I have seen another never published that looks similar,    there is the one in New York where something was cavorting in a tree, and there is the one bent over where you see the backside.   People argue that is a skinny bear.     It would seem the young ones are more likely to make mistakes and get photographed.  .    Mine popped up to have a look at me just at the wrong time for it, when I had the camera on and pointed,  and ready to take its picture.       I never got a glimpse of the adult (mother?) who was carrying it.   Mom did not make the same mistake and peek at me when I was looking that way.    Human avoidance has to be a learned behavior and as they mature they must get better at it, and that includes avoiding game or other cameras.        I suspect, that when we as humans enter an active BF area, we are likely under continuous surveillance as soon as BF knows we are there.     That is the only thing I can come up with, other than extreme rarity, to explain why there are not more sightings and game camera photos.    They probably watch us strap the cameras to the tree in most cases.   It is a big deal where you attach antitheft cables,    fuss with it to make sure it is pointed where you want it,  made sure it is on,  and most of the time it is not moved.   That all is obvious and takes time to do.     Usually game cameras are not hidden but just strapped onto the tree and left.        I think success would be more likely if cameras were so well hidden that humans had difficulty finding them after they were deployed.    They should be frequently moved in case they are observed as you deploy or check the SD card.    I have no idea of BF understands a cameras purpose.     The only thing that BF has to understand it that it is a human gadget, and all human gadgets should be avoided as much as possible, just as humans are.      All of that is just theory to explain what is observed with relationship to game cameras.     But my main point is that if you deploy game cameras,  and an area is active with BF,  something must be being done wrong on the part of the humans involved if pictures are never obtained.     The skeptics have every right to question lack of game camera photos.    Something is wrong.  

Edited January 3, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[MNskeptic]

Can't say that my level of belief has changed in my time here on BFF. I've been something like 60/40 in favor of existence for a long time, though my belief waivers a bit with my mood or frustration level at the time (so many hoaxes). Having seen all the 'evidence' you guys/gals have seen, the most compelling arguments in favor of existence for me are the least reliable - eyewitness reports. I'm well aware of all the problems with eyewitness reports and discount a lot of them, perhaps most. Still, the ones that pass the smell test and feel/seem legit I can't explain away and they keep me coming back for more.

[Yuchi1]

The BFF influenced my belief by being something of a clearing house for the comings and goings on in bigfootism.   I was gradually losing belief in bigfoot for a few years but the major nails in the coffin of my belief were Todd Standing, Georgia freezer foot, Melba Ketchum and the general video debacles that litter youtube.  Compounding these was  the bigfoot conferencing lack of vetting (or lack of caring) of Todd Standing and giving his fakery a pride of place was one of the final nails.  Being able to predict that the Ketchum affair was going to be another bunch of nothing sealed the deal.  I never even raised an eyebrow about Sykes, I was already done with belief when he published.

 

Crowlogic,

 

IMO, what you described is all the white noise endemic in this endeavor and that the real obstacle and impediment are homo sapiens as "whatever" this entity in the woods is, has always been there (per MIB) and will always be there. It isn't until you have the encounter that cognizance and understanding of reality is attained along with the knowledge that 99% of what you see, hear and read regarding this endeavor is irrelevant, for a wide variety of reasons.

 

Along the lines of when one of my history professors introduced himself to the class..."My name is Dr. Charles G.....r, professor of history, which means I profess to know what I'm speaking about and therefore it is incumbent upon you, the student to ascertain the BS from the fact, of what I "profess" to know..."

 

IMO, much truth there and applicable in many disciplines of life.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Yuchi1

[SWWASAS]

I like your history professor Yuchi!    He must know how much fiction is written into the history books.     With reference to North America I think a large percentage is pure revisionist history to justify what the political class has done to the country. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Patterson-Gimlin]

It seemed more plausible back in the 70's when BF was gaining attention. And it's certainly a fascinating and intriguing topic. 

 

I need more explanation on why trail cameras are not taking pictures of these Animals. Technology is looking like it's catching up with the question of existence. Therefore as time moves on chances on existence seems less and less likely. No matter how clever and how elusive a creature can theoretically be, at some point one of them is going to make a mistake and walk in front of a trail cam. To me the topic of BF is simply a question about a biological flesh, fur and blood animal that is yet to be formally discovered or simply doesn't exist. Most likely animals of any type do not have impeccable elusiveness. Somewhere someplace from my line of reasoning one of them has to walk in front of a camera of some sort.  I sense if nothing credible comes up in the next decade, for me, it's looking very unlikely they exist.

 

I am intrigued but overall it's more likely not than is.

Well said. You make excellent points. The technology is advanced to the point that if elusive man apes were real there would be more tangible evidence than one ambiguous film. Even so the mystery remains and the hope continues.

[Celtic Raider]

When you say "belief", it suggests faith, as in a religion. I don't belief in BF.

 

I think the original post meant to say "how has the BFF influenced your confidence level that BF exists".

 

For me you've hit the nail on the head Gigantor. I was always interested in things like Bigfoot, Loch Ness, etc. but am of a sceptical mindset. The more I've read and the more knowledge I've gained regarding Bigfoot the more interested I've become. While I initially would have said Bigfoot was very unlikely, I now think it is quite possible but am waiting for better evidence.

 

Bill Munn's book regarding the PGF was a very good stepping stone for me but the next step would be to go from quite possible to probable but that would take a very good piece of evidence indeed.