How Has This Forum Affected Your Belief In Bf?

[Incorrigible1]

The crux of my point remains. No skeptic here would need to eat crow or apply rub if BF turned up on an slab tomorrow.

And even if I'm wrong, and BF DOES turn up...well, nevermind. You get the point.

Ohhh, if the creature bore any semblance to Patty, there's a couple posters I'd enjoy serving a warm dish of crow. Along with some just desserts. A fleeting smile would cross my face.

[Guest]

Be that as it may, but holding the well researched opinion on July 4th that BF does not exist is both logical and reasonable. If BF turned out to be real on July 5th it would in no way imply that anyone was "wrong", needed to eat "crow" or have their faces "rub"edd in anything.

I told ya so's would fall on deaf keyboards.

[Guest]

Be that as it may, but holding the well researched opinion on July 4th that BF does not exist is both logical and reasonable. If BF turned out to be real on July 5th it would in no way imply that anyone was "wrong", needed to eat "crow" or have their faces "rub"edd in anything.

I told ya so's would fall on deaf keyboards.

I don't think the crow would be served up simply because people did not believe in BF, I believe it would have more to do with they way they conducted themselves towards those who did. Without mentioning any posters in particular, usually those who are insightful and respectful during discussions of matters with differing opinions do not get told "I told ya so".

[Guest]

I don't think the crow would be served up simply because people did not believe in BF, I believe it would have more to do with they way they conducted themselves towards those who did. Without mentioning any posters in particular, usually those who are insightful and respectful during discussions of matters with differing opinions do not get told "I told ya so".

I disagree. I think 98% of the believers here would shout from the rooftops that anyone who disbelieved in any way, respectfully or not, were wrong to do so when in reality, at the time and with the current "evidence" for bF, they were actually right to disbelieve.

[Guest]

I disagree. I think 98% of the believers here would shout from the rooftops that anyone who disbelieved in any way, respectfully or not, were wrong to do so when in reality, at the time and with the current "evidence" for bF, they were actually right to disbelieve.

Your 98% number is likely wildly incorrect, but if they do, it is probably because of their experience with the most extreme of skeptics. As I said before, there is always ridiculousness and extremism at both ends of any spectrum, and when you throw that out you usually have a pretty good area for constructive discussion and debate leftover. These are the people who don't feel the need to say "I told you so" because the people on the other side treated them with respect and dignity over the course of discussion.

[Incorrigible1]

I disagree. I think 98% of the believers here would shout from the rooftops that anyone who disbelieved in any way, respectfully or not, were wrong to do so when in reality, at the time and with the current "evidence" for bF, they were actually right to disbelieve.

Aye, there's much two can disagree upon, as evidenced by your position. 98%, eh? Bully that you allow 2% for the off chance you might be incorrect. Ever so thoughtful.

[Guest]

Thank you.

[Guest]

I've already gone on the record that I would literally eat crow.

I get to take an Alaskan vacation and enjoy a nice prime rib with Huntster! How could I possibly not want bigfoot to be real when the stakes are . . . steaks?

[Guest]

BTW, the "woods gone silent" thing? This happens all the time and there's nothing bigfooty about it. It doesn't mean there's a predator around or aliens or ghosts or anything creepy like that.

Animals simply have natural rhythms to their behaviors, and they also adjust those behaviors according to various environmental and social conditions. Forests can be remarkably bereft of bird song in mid-summer through early autumn as there is no need to sing to defend territories at that time. During spring and early summer, bird song rates drop off dramatically each day by mid-morning, and it can be pretty quiet until early evening. Once one stops singing, that usually leads its neighbors going quiet as well, because song is so often used as response to another singing individual. A rather subtle change in temperature or humidity can have a dramatic effect on the sounds one hears in the woods. Insects and frogs are affected by such things too.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Come on Saskeptic! We all know that when the woods go eerily silent... it means some unspeakable horror (monster, ghost, hockey-masked killer, etc) is creeping up. Probably from behind too, so that just when you spin around, a second too late, you will...

SHUDDER. Sorry. Creeped myself out there.

As to what this Forum has done for me? It has shown me that a lot of the folks who are open to the idea of BF are, in fact, a hard sell when it comes to folks trotting out new photos, videos, sighting reports, etc. I am sure some of the "skeptical crowd" are gnashing their teeth to hear me say it, and please note... I said SOME of the folks who are open to the idea of BF, not ALL of them (there are some very credulous "believers", I admit!). But I have to grin when the latest BF photo or video or whatever is run by the crowd here... they come up with means of debunking, questioning, challenging, that would never occur to me (of course, that is a pretty low bar!). And some of the toughest in that crowd are drawn from the "fence-sitter" group. They aren't hostile to the IDEA of BF, per se, but they aren't checking their critical faculties at the door.

Not what a lot of folks would expect, I suspect. I bet a lot imagine a "Bigfoot Forum" would be filled with folks EAGER to be taken in by the latest "guy in a monkey suit" shakey-cam video. Not so.

Shadow

[Guest]

I get to take an Alaskan vacation and enjoy a nice prime rib with Huntster! How could I possibly not want bigfoot to be real when the stakes are . . . steaks?

Next time you're in So Oregon, I'll buy you a steak dinner, bigfoot or not (wouldn't want you starving because bigfoot hasn't been discovered). Let me know when to meet at Omars in Ashland and I'll be there with steak money in hand.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Ace

[Doc Holliday]

nicely said shadowprime. +1

many of the self proclaimed witnesses and proponents alike are some of, if not the toughest critics of new claims.

too much BS has floated under the bridge , & these folks stop a good bit of it upstream.

maybe not what some would expect of the stereotypical "bleever"?? self - policing & all.

.....now, if we could just get that pic of a BF wearing a hockey mask we'd all know why the woods go silent..........just after the cue for spooky music

[Guest]

Next time you're in So Oregon, I'll buy you a steak dinner, bigfoot or not (wouldn't want you starving because bigfoot hasn't been discovered). Let me know when to meet at Omars in Ashland and I'll be there with steak money in hand.

Now we're talking - but I'd be buying, as that's my deal with Huntster.

[norseman]

I actually leaned towards believing until I began to spend time on the old BFF and came to understand that squatch "facts" are nothing of the sort.

I found that the old truism "keep repeating something and it will become the truth" is a very honest representation of the "facts" surrounding this myth.

People with no training, experience, skill, or certification are cited as "experts" with such stunning regularity that they are accepted as such. Farenbach for example. His notions concerning gross hair morphology is outdated and inaccurate; and, the fact that his "sasquatch hairs" are "indistinguishable from human hair" is such a dead giveaway as to make someone familiar with the topic belly laugh.

The idea that there exists a cross cultural myth throughout the North American Indigenous population about a giant hairy bi-pedal primate is an utter crock - yet people actually believe this and use it as a reason for "believing" when there is absolutely no validity to this "fact"! People actually cite other squatch believers and squatch websites without any realization that they are not citing real research that has been verified by in depth study and peer review! THE ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH IS TOTALLY IGNORED!

Of course - the fact that "beliefs" that are touted as being "real" by the squatch proponents that go hand in hand with the other "beliefs" that are purposefully and conveniently ignored is very telling.

Who on this board believes that Indian maidens were kidnapped by giant beavers and mated with and produced beaver/human offspring? (Algonquin). Why not? Why should that belief be less alluring than giant hairy bi-pedal primates kidnapped Indian maidens and produced offspring? Because it fits in with what you WANT to believe, of course.

What about Gods in the form of bears giving three Chiefs the ability to write and when discovering that the Chiefs did not share this knowledge with the people - turn them into a Giant Stone? (Sto:lo). Why not believe that story as much as the same tribe's story about squatches? Because it fits in with what you WANT to believe, of course.

I learned that the "Skookum Cast" was definitely an elk lay. No ifs and/or butts (pun intended) about it.

I learned that Chilcutt did a flawed analysis of casts of questionable provenance. He did not come even close to what he knows is the minimum standard of "evidence" with his so-called "dermal ridges" that were shown to be casting artifacts by actual dedicated researchers who followed tried and true research methods that are repeatable and falsifiable.

I learned that the so-called "Four Horsemen" were very poor in the way of research and interviewing skills. They were much more interested in self promotion and the being the first with the "find of the century" than any sort of real investigations. I learned that their lack of any proper investigative and proper research abilities has caused many of the problems in today's beliefs about this phenomenon. If anyone had bothered to ask: "Say Roger, exactly how did you get that film developed and here so fast?" - one of the greatest pieces of "evidence" would have been put to rest very quickly.

I learned that the vast majority of people have no idea what a living foot does when it hits the ground and lifts off in various soil types.

Most of all - I learned that "belief" is very much uninfluenced and uninhibited by the actual truth.

All this IMHO, of course.

edited for spelllink

I thought for sure this would be blatantly obvious but evidently not. The reason that nobody is pointing to giant Beaver Indian myths? Is because NOBODY is seeing giant Beavers in the here and now! But there are other Indian myths that do get some attention, such as the Thunder bird. Because people still reportedly see giant birds! Same goes for Ogopogo and other water borne cryptids as well.

I flatly reject that "believers" are pulling myths out of a hat to believe in.......instead they have seen something that has perplexed them and they are looking validate what they saw. If you saw a Squatch and then read that the local indians 400 years ago were also seeing something similar? It's comforting to know that your not alone in your experience.

I have a friend who saw a Sasquatch, her husband teases her relentlessly over it, and I'm quite confident she simply didn't just "choose" to believe in the creature. She really saw something, and she is more than willing to take the heat over it, even from a spouse. Not everyone is in her situation though, some of us saw tracks, heard sounds, or saw other evidence that made us believe something may be out there beyond conventional wisdom. And then there are people who have read a compelling book or talked to a witness that has made them change their mind.

But I don't think any of them picked a myth out of a book and decided to believe in it. That's not where this whole thing comes from in the modern era. If you have seen a giant beaver? I'm not going to judge you, but what I saw was a large bipedal track way in deep snow...........and not giant beaver tracks. So one myth is going to interest me while the other is not. It's that simple.

[Guest]

There is something about giant mutant beavers roaming the rivers and waterways that tickles me even if someone did come and tell me they saw one. I am getting a visual of it now and merging that with Grayjay's attack beaver stories. :lol: